HP HC: Provisional Order Can’t be Disputed by Writ Petition in GST

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that the Provisional Attachment Order will not be challenged via Writ Petition.

Below Section 74 of Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Get the brief introduction of SGST, IGST and CGST. We have mentioned their full forms, meanings and adjustments of input tax credit under GST in India addressed with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a case is executed with respect to the suppliers of M/s Radha Krishan Industries, Kala-Amb, i.e. M/s GM Powertech, Kala-Amb through the scrutiny and examination beneath the section 67 of the HPGST/CGST Acts.

Beneath section 83 of the Act, a show-cause notice is given concerning the provisional attachment of the payment M/s Fujikawa Power, Bagbania, BBN Baddi.

The applicant while furnishing the response filed representation and the respondent withdrew the notice. But in the initial investigation, the evidence related to the tax theft is detected and M/s GM Powertech, Kala-Amb availed and took the input tax credit (ITC) The GSTN has offered a clarification to the problems regarding ITC mismatch amount for the taxpayers in form GSTR 2A and GSTR 9 annual return form on behalf of the invoice given through the bogus companies excluding the actual movement of goods from the bogus companies.

Also same as above, with similar analogy the M/s GM Powertech to various recipients lives in the state of Himachal Pradesh which includes the applicant. Back to back, the respondent provides a provisional attachment of the payment which is collectible through the applicant.

On this concern, Additional Advocate General Mr. Ajay Vaidya has asked about the maintainability of this appeal on the basis of another treatment for the same. Under section 107 of the GST Act issued by respondent Mr. Puneet Bali an applicant’s counselor has told him that there is another way i.e appeal. He says that the prohibition rule of jurisdiction as per the presence of another method is a rule of circumspection and not one of the obligations. He moreover states that in spite of another method.

The Coram consisting of Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua specified that in case the law council have not behaved according to the provisions of the Act or in resistance to the basic principles of a legal plan or has laid to call the procurement which is revoked or whether an order is passed for the violation of the principle of the justice, under Article 226 of the Constitution an appeal will not be answered through the High court if another method is present to the unsatisfied.

Hence the appeal will be let go through the court where a writ appeal furnished through M/s GM Powertech, which is the organization on which allegations will not be entertained with respect to the applicant, and the organization will be inferior to claim for the other method.