Page 111 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

2020 ]S. KUMAR’S ASSOCIATES v. ADDL. COMMR. (PREV.) OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., BILASPUR 29
electronically, or to accept the same manually. Respondents shall thereafter pro-
cess the claims in accordance with law. We are also of the opinion that other tax-
payers who are similarly situated should also be entitled to avail the benefit of
this judgment. Therefore, Respondents are directed to publicise this judgment
widely including by way of publishing the same on their website so that others
who may not have been able to file TRAN-1 till date are permitted to do so on or
before 30-6-2020.
24. All the petitions are allowed in the above terms.

_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 29 (Chhattisgarh)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT
BILASPUR

P. Sam Koshy, J.
S. KUMAR’S ASSOCIATES
Versus
ADDL. COMMR. (PREV.) OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., BILASPUR
Writ Petition (T) No. 61 of 2017, decided on 21-7-2017
Recovery of tax - Garnishee notice for recovery of dues payable to
assessee for appropriation towards Service Tax default - Initiation of appropri-
ate assessment proceeding and determination of amount payable by assessee
and issuance of demand notice essential before initiation of proceedings under
Section 87 of Finance Act, 1994 - No adjudication done under Section 73 ibid or
any demand notice being raised against assessee at any point of time -
Improper to issue garnishee notices and freezing order straightaway - Gar-
nishee notices issued before a final determination set aside/quashed - De-
partment expected to finalize proceeding drawn on show cause notice dated
21-10-2016 and determine amount payable by assessee - Only in event of fail-
ure to satisfy demand notice issued thereafter proceeding under Section 87 of
Finance Act, 1994 to be initiated. [2016 (41) S.T.R. 392 (Kar.), 2015 (40) S.T.R. 888
(Guj.), 2015 (38) S.T.R. 907 (Bom.) relied on]. [paras 9, 10]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Gopala Builders v. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence
— 2015 (40) S.T.R. 888 (Guj.) — Relied on ................................................................................... [Para 7]
ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Union of India — 2015 (38) S.T.R. 907 (Bom.) — Relied on ................................ [Para 8]
Prashanti v. Union of India — 2016 (41) S.T.R. 392 (Kar.) — Relied on .............................................. [Para 6]
Sarda Energy & Minerals Ltd. v. Union of India — Writ Petition (T) No. 73 of 2017,
decided on 28-6-2017 by Chhattisgarh High Court —Referred ............................................... [Para 4]
REPRESENTED BY : Shri Siddharth Dubey, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate, for the Respondent.
[Order]. - By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Consti-
tution of India, the Petitioners have sought for issuance of a writ quashing An-

GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  111