2019 (1) TMI 1287 - HC - GST

Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - attachment order passed on the concerned banks without furnishing copy of any such order to the concerned supplier - Held that - he general practice of the department is to issue provisional attachment order on the concerned banks without furnishing copy of any such order to the concerned supplier. It is difficult to comprehend as to how the supplier whose property is attached would be in a position to file objection under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 if a copy of such order is not furnished to such supplier. Issue Notice and Notice as to interim relief returnable on 29th January, 2019. Direct service is permitted today.

Summary

Issues:
Provisional attachment of bank accounts under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without serving a copy of the order on the petitioner.

Analysis:

The judgment delivered by the Gujarat High Court pertains to the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court noted that although the provisional attachment had been made, the petitioner had not been served with a copy of the order under section 83 of the Act. The order of provisional attachment was issued to the concerned bank in Form DRC-22, as per rule 159(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. However, sub-rule (5) of rule 159 allows any person whose property is attached to file an objection within seven days of attachment. The court observed that the general practice of the department was to issue provisional attachment orders to the concerned banks without providing a copy to the affected supplier. This raised a concern as to how the supplier could effectively file an objection under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 without being furnished with a copy of the order.

The court, while acknowledging the procedural irregularity in serving the petitioner with a copy of the provisional attachment order, directed for a notice to be issued. The notice, along with interim relief, was made returnable on 29th January 2019. The court permitted direct service of the notice on the same day, ensuring that the petitioner would be duly informed of the proceedings and have the opportunity to respond effectively.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the right of the affected party to be informed and provided with necessary documents to exercise their legal rights effectively. The court's intervention in ensuring proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner to respond underscores the principles of natural justice and due process in legal proceedings.