Page 89 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

2020 ] AMAZONITE STEEL PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 191
9. Mr. Chakrabarti further argued that various representations were
made to the respondent authorities praying before them to defreeze the said ac-
counts of the petitioners but to no avail. He further submits that the fresh orders
dated 31st October, 2019, passed by respondent No. 3 was not even served per-
sonally upon the petitioner, in fact, it was annexed along with the Affidavit-in-
Opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 in the earlier writ petitions.
10. Counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the non-issue of
the fresh orders within time was an error on the part of the authorities. She fur-
ther submitted that since the investigation with regard to the entire transactions
that involved several companies was in progress, the authorities may have inad-
vertently failed to issue the fresh orders of provisional attachment within time.
11. Upon hearing both parties on the second issue, it is obvious that the
authorities have acted in a blatantly highhanded and illegal manner by keeping
the provisional attachments in a state of continuance for the period from 5th
June, 2019 (when the first order of provisional attachment ceases to operate) till
31st October, 2019 (when fresh order for provisional attachment was passed).
Section 83(2) is crystal clear that the provisional attachment shall cease upon ex-
piry of one year. It was therefore incumbent on the authorities to either release
the provisional attachment by informing the bank or by issuing a fresh order of
provisional attachment, if the law so allowed. The failure to do the above is noth-
ing short of being an act of highhandedness. Such actions of the authorities is an
obloquy and reprehensible. No explanation has been provided for the same ei-
ther in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions or by counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent authorities during hearing of arguments. In my view
the above action is clearly in violation of the petitioners’ rights for carrying on
business under Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and under Article 300A
of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioners have been deprived of their
property without authority of law. Ergo, the issue is decided in favour of the petition-
ers. In my view the actions of the Revenue in acting in contravention of Section
83(2) is condemnable, and accordingly costs are required to be imposed. In light
of the same, I direct the concerned respondent authorities to pay costs of Rs. 5
Lakhs to each of the three petitioner-companies. These amounts should be depos-
ited in the current account that are provisionally attached within a period of four
weeks from date.
Issue C :
12. Mr. Chakraborty drew the Court’s attention to the Calcutta High
Court judgment in Falguni Chakraborti v. The State of West Bengal and Others [2002
LAB I.C. 65] and the Supreme Court judgment in Indian National Congress (I) v.
Institute of Social Welfare and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 685] to bring home the point
that an authority cannot act beyond the powers conferred by the statute. He
submitted that in fiscal statutes, the Supreme Court has time and again held that
strict interpretation is required to be followed and no liability of tax can be im-
posed de hors the statute. He further relied on the Supreme Court judgments in
CIT, Bombay v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Manufacturing Company Ltd. [(1992) 3 SCC 326]
and State of Jharkhand and Others v. Ambay Cements and Another [AIR 2005 SC 4168
= 2004 (178) E.L.T. 55 (S.C.)] to buttress the argument that when the language is
plain and unambiguous and the provision penal in nature, the same must be
strictly construed and the courts should not do violence to the provision by read-
ing and/or adding something that is not intended by the Legislature.
GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  89