Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
Section 62 in The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [Entire Act]
Shri Krishnan vs The Kurukshetra University, ... on 17 November, 1975
Shri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University, reported in AIR
1976 SC 376]. It is not the case of the Commissioner that the
alleged fraudulent acts could not have been detected by
exercise of due diligence. In the absence thereof, the
inference to be drawn is that due diligence had not been
7/9
3-wpl 13363-21
exercised at the end of the revenue, and the orders impugned
cannot be defended by reference to the principle urged by the
respondent no.3 that since there has been an alleged fraud,
the power to order provisional attachment can be exercised.
To empower a Commissioner to order provisional attachment
on account of presence of vitiating circumstances as the one
under consideration before the respondent no.3, the statute
itself ought to have provided so and the power to attach
property, which is of a drastic nature, ought not to have been
exercised on facts and in the circumstances. As a matter of
fact, no proceedings under Sections 62 or 63 or 64 or 67 or
73 or 74 of the CGST Act are pending; hence, the respondent
no.3 committed an error of jurisdictional fact for which the
Court is constrained to hold that she had no authority to
invoke the power conferred by Section 83 of the CGST Act
read with Rule 159(1) of the CGST Rules.
Kushal Timber Pvt Ltd. vs Union Of India on 31 July, 2020
We are further of the view, having
read the decision in M/s.Radha Krishan Industries (supra),
that such decision, in effect, approves the view taken by the
Gujarat High Court in Kushal Ltd. (supra).
1