Goods and Services Tax

M/s H.M. INDUSTRIAL PVT. LTD Versus THE COMMISSIONER, CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE

2019 (2) TMI 425 – GUJARAT HIGH COURT – TMI – Provisional attachment of property – invocation of provisions of section 83 of the CGST Act against the directors of the petitioner-company – Held that:- The reliance placed upon section 89 of the Act is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch the same relates to recovery of any tax, interest or penalty due from a private company in respect of supply of goods or services. Moreover, even if such amount cannot be recovered from the private company, the directors of the company do not ipso facto become liable to pay such amount and it is only if the director fails to prove that non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1. By the impugned orders of provisional attachment of the property under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act ), the respondent has, inter alia, attached the bank accounts of the directors of the petitioner-company. A perusal of the provisions of section 83 of the CGST Act shows that the same empowers the Commissioner, if the circumstances therein are satisfied, to attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person, in such manner as may be prescribed. The term taxable person has been defined under sub-section (107) of section 2 of the CGST Act to mean a person who is registered or liable to be regist

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

ed upon section 89 of the Act is thoroughly misconceived inasmuch the same relates to recovery of any tax, interest or penalty due from a private company in respect of supply of goods or services. Moreover, even if such amount cannot be recovered from the private company, the directors of the company do not ipso facto become liable to pay such amount and it is only if the director fails to prove that nonrecovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company, that the same can be invoked. However, in any case, at this stage, section 83 of the Act does not apply to the directors of the private company. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders of attachment, t

= = = = = = = =

Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source

= = = = = = = =

Leave a Reply