Page 51 - GSTL_30th April 2020_Vol 35_Part 5

2020 ] BRAHMAPUTRA TELE PRODUCTIONS PVT. LTD. v. STATE BANK OF INDIA 537
zation of dues, respondent No. 2 issued notice to respondent No. 1 on 14-2-2017
and on subsequent dates under Section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994 calling up-
on respondent No. 1 to pay to the credit of the Central Government the money
held by respondent No. 1 in the bank account of petitioner being Bank Account
No. 34890601572.
5. Petitioner had represented before respondent No. 2 to withdraw the
garnishee notices and to allow the petitioner to operate such bank account. Fur-
ther prayer was made to allow the petitioner to pay outstanding dues in install-
ments. Respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner on 11-4-2017 that the garnishee
notices could not be withdrawn. Regarding payment of dues on installments, it
was stated that the matter was under consideration of the Commissioner.
6. Petitioner has stated that despite financial difficulties it had made
payment of ` 24,00,000.00 on 5-1-2019 towards meeting the liabilities and thereaf-
ter a further amount of ` 1 lac on 21-1-2019.
7. Notwithstanding the same, respondent No. 2 had instructed the cli-
ents of the petitioner not to make payments to the petitioner in view of issuance
of garnishee notices.
8. Faced with such a situation, present writ petition has been filed seek-
ing the reliefs as indicated above.
9. This Court vide order dated 20-2-2019 had directed Mr. Sarma,
Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 to obtain instructions regarding prayer of
the petitioner for payment of service tax dues in installments. In the meanwhile,
an interim order was passed to the effect that no further coercive measures be
taken against the petitioner.
10. Petitioner filed an interlocutory application being IA (Civil) No.
1064/2019 to quash subsequent notices issued pursuant to the garnishee notices.
The subsequent notices were issued to different clients of the petitioner calling
upon them to pay directly to the Central Government account as part amount
covered by the garnishee notices.
11. This Court by order dated 8-4-2019 held that interim order passed
on 20-2-2019 was holding the field. Therefore, the subsequent notices should not
be acted upon until further order(s); besides clarifying that such notices would be
subject to outcome of the writ petition. Relevant portion of the order dated
8-4-2019 is extracted hereunder :-
“By filing this Interlocutory Application, petitioner seeks stay of no-
tices issued to various entities by the Assistant Commissioner of Central
Excise and GST Division-I, Guwahati under Section 87(b) of Chapter-IV of
Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Ser-
vice Taxes Act, 2017.
Basic grievance of the petitioner is that the said notices have been is-
sued without adjudicating the service tax liability of the petitioner and me-
chanical levy of interest. Without adjudication, those notices could not have
been issued. Levy of interest is not automatic. There is a wide range within
which interest can be levied and this reflects exercise of discretionary pow-
ers by the adjudicating authority which was not exercised in the instant
case. But the prime grievance expressed by the petitioner is that notwith-
standing the interim protection extended by this Court to the petitioner on
20-2-2019, the said notices have been issued causing serious prejudice to the
petitioner in the market.

GST LAW TIMES  30th April 2020  51