BPCL KOCHI REFINERY Vs. M.I. ABU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The garnishee came up challenging the garnishee proceedings in execution of a decree (award) for Rs.30,17,645.00 against the judgment debtor, the State of Kerala mainly on the reason that the impugned order was passed in violation of Sec. 162 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short the GST Act) and also on the ground that the tax authority will not recognise the valid discharge under Rule 46 F of Order XXI C.P.C.

(2.) The bar under Sec. 162 of GST Act would operate only with respect to the matters brought under the purview of the said Act saving Ss. 117 and 118 of the Act. It may not have any application pertaining to execution under Order XXI C.P.C. especially to Rule 46 series of Order XXI C.P.C. Further there is no much merit that it will not be recognized by the taxing authority under the Act while submitting return on the tax payable.

(3.) During the course of argument, the 3rd respondent/State Government raised a contention challenging the abovesaid order that the tax payable would become debt only when a self assessment return or statutory return was submitted. But it is an admitted case from the affidavit submitted by the garnishee that they are making payment of tax on a monthly basis and as such, there is no merit in the abovesaid submission, especially when they have not opted to challenge the said order either by appeal or otherwise. The appeal fails, dismissed. No costs.