Anushka Manshramani
In the case of M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. & Ors., the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that a provisional Attachment cannot be challenged through a writ petition or by ignoring the statutory dispensation.
A detention case was filed against one of the Suppliers (M/s GM Powertech, Kala-Amb) of M/s Radha Krishan Industries by way of search and seizure under Section 74 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Section 20 of Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued to M/s Fujikawa Power, Bagbania, BBN Baddi under Section 83 of the Act, relating to the Provision attachment of the payment of the petitioner.
In reply to the show-cause notice issued, the petitioner filed for representation, and thereby the respondent withdrew the notice.
During the initial investigation, evidence of tax evasion was traced and M/s GM Powertech, Kala-Amb claimed that he utilized the input tax credit on the invoice account that was issued by fake firms.
M/s GM Powertech further similarly issued invoices to various recipients in HP after which the respondents issued provisional attachment of the payment that was receivable by the petitioner.
M/s Radha Krishan Industries then filed a writ petition in the Himachal Pradesh High Court challenging the order passed by the Goods and Service Tax (GST) authorities.
This order challenged was against the provisional attachment of the payment receivable by the consumer.
This order could be challenged by way of appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act as questioned by the Additional Advocate General, but, the petitioner argued: “the rule of exclusion of jurisdiction due to availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of the compulsions.”
The bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua noted the recent judgement passed by the Apex Court, Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. v. Glaxo Smit Kline Consumer HealthCare.
The Court held that although the High Court has the power to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it does not have the power to do so in cases where the aggrieved person had an alternate remedy available prescribed by law.
Therefore, the court dismissed the plea filed and found that the company against whom similar allegations were made have not been entertained, and the company has been advised to avail the alternate remedy available.