Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.05 seconds)
Documents citing Valerius Industries vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2019

Lakshman Saraf vs The Senior Intelligence Officer on 8 July, 2024

17. Although, Mr. Bag, by placing reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Valerius Industries (supra) and Meenakshi Trendz (supra) has attempted to identify the circumstances under which the orders of attachment could be issued and has attempted to claim that the present case does not fall within the exception provided in the said judgment for the respondents either to pass or continue with the orders of attachment, I may, however, notice that in the instant case, it is the petitioner who at the first instance did not come forward to file any objection in terms of Rule 159(5) of the said Rules. From the copies of the envelopes bearing postal endorsement, it would appear that the petitioner could not be located. Interestingly, the petitioner for one entire year from the date of issuance of the provisional attachment orders dated 3rd February, 2023 and 10th February, 2023, chose not to apply in terms of Rule 159(5) of the said Rules. Had the petitioner applied, the petitioner could have raised all objections before the respondents and the respondents could have, in such case, not got an opportunity to claim that the petitioner was avoiding service of notice, which prompted them to issue fresh provisional orders of attachment.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Radha Krishan Industries vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 20 April, 2021

In Valerius Industries v Union of India28, the Gujarat High Court laid down the principles for the construction of Section 83 of the SGST/CGST Act. The High Court noted that a provisional attachment on the basis of a subjective satisfaction, absent any cogent or credible material, constitutes malice in law. It further outlined the principles for the exercise of the power:
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 296 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Bhavesh Kiritbhai Kalani vs Union Of India on 19 April, 2021

9. We have heard learned advocate, Mr. Manan Paneri for the petitioner. Following the line of memo of petition, he has urged that the respondents authorities have no powers to proceed against the petitioner as none of the proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 67, 73 or 74 of the Act are pending against him, whose properties are likely to be disposed of in the interest of the government. So far as third party is concerned, provision of Section 83 will not be available with the Court and even to provisionally attach the bank account being a drastic power, such powers are not to be exercised in routine. Even if for safeguarding the government revenue, provisional attachment of bank account is not permitted against the third party. Only upon the conditions provided Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Wed Aug 25 07:55:06 IST 2021 C/SCA/16360/2020 ORDER under Section 83 being fulfilled, the powers are to be exercised. He has urged that there are inbuilt safeguards against the third party provided under Section 83 of the Act and therefore, there is a need for the Court to intervene in its writ jurisdiction. He further urged that in the decision of valerious Industries Versus Union of (Supra), the Court extensively has examined the scope of section 83 of the CGST Act, where it has not permitted the freezing of the bank account of the third party petitioner, holding it arbitrary under section 83 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Madhav Copper Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 23 November, 2021

In the case on hand, we do not propose to interfere with the investigation already undertaken by the department. Ultimately, if sufficient material surfaces indicating the involvement of the writ-applicant in some bogus transaction, the next step in the process can always be a show-cause notice under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, as the case may be. However, to provisionally attach all the bank accounts and that too those accounts in which there is hardly any balance would only cause undue hardship to the assessee. This is the grey area where the Revenue or the authority concerned needs to apply its mind before the power is exercised. This is the reason why in Valerius Industries (supra) this Court observed that the considerations are altogether different for the purpose of exercising the power of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act. Just because some proceedings are initiated under Section 67 of the Act by itself may not be sufficient to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that it is necessary to provisionally attach the property for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government Revenue. An order of provisional attachment cannot be as a matter of course. It is one of the drastic measures which the authority may be compelled to take if the situation demands for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government Revenue.
Gujarat High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Bhavesh Kiritbhai Kalani vs Union Of India on 19 April, 2021

9. We have heard learned advocate, Mr. Manan Paneri for the petitioner. Following the line of memo of petition, he has urged that the respondents authorities have no powers to proceed against the petitioner as none of the proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 67, 73 or 74 of the Act are pending against him, whose properties are likely to be disposed of in the interest of the government. So far as third party is concerned, provision of Section 83 will not be available with the Court and even to provisionally attach the bank account being a drastic power, such powers are not to be exercised in routine. Even if for safeguarding the government revenue, provisional attachment of bank account is not permitted against the third party. Only upon the conditions provided Page 6 of 13 Downloaded on : Fri Jan 14 02:48:38 IST 2022 C/SCA/16360/2020 ORDER under Section 83 being fulfilled, the powers are to be exercised. He has urged that there are inbuilt safeguards against the third party provided under Section 83 of the Act and therefore, there is a need for the Court to intervene in its writ jurisdiction. He further urged that in the decision of valerious Industries Versus Union of (Supra), the Court extensively has examined the scope of section 83 of the CGST Act, where it has not permitted the freezing of the bank account of the third party petitioner, holding it arbitrary under section 83 of the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Arya Metacast Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2022

10. Apart from the aforesaid guidelines, the above stated decision in the case of Valerius Industries ( supra), has been recognized in the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Radhe Krishan Industries vs. state of H.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 and has in detail has dealt with similar provision on statute book of Himachal Pradesh Goods and Service Tax act, 2017. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the orders of provisional attachment passed by the Joint commissioner. The Supreme Court held that, the power to order a provisional attachment of the property of the taxable person including a bank account is draconian in nature and the conditions which are prescribed by the Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 13:06:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/2787/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/03/2022 statute for a valid exercise of the power must be strictly fulfilled.
Gujarat High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next