2021 (1) TMI 301 - HC - GST

Service of notice - Validity of freezing of bank accounts of the petitioner - respondents explains that a large amount of tax evasion is suspected but notice could not be issued because of a large number of people involved and who are evading summons/information - Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The counsel for the petitioner states that once admittedly no notice exists and a year has passed since the search, there was no need for the emergent action of freezing of bank accounts. On request of the counsel for respondents, list on 11th January, 2021.

Summary

Issues:
1. Freezing of bank accounts without proper notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
2. Risk of defaulting on repayments and salaries for a Micro, Small & Medium Enterprise (MSME).
3. Justification for freezing bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act.
4. Delay in issuing a notice despite a search conducted a year ago.

Analysis:
1. The petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts without a notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act. The petitioner's counsel argues that the accounts were frozen erroneously without proper legal basis, risking the MSME's financial stability and ability to meet obligations.

2. The petitioner, being an MSME, faces the imminent risk of defaulting on repayments and salaries due to the sudden freezing of its bank accounts. The accounts in question are current accounts used solely for receiving and disbursing overdraft limits, exacerbating the financial strain caused by the freeze.

3. The freezing of the bank accounts is purportedly justified under Section 83 of the CGST Act due to a search conducted at the petitioner's premises. However, the absence of a formal notice under Section 74 raises concerns about the legality and necessity of such drastic action.

4. Despite the search conducted a year ago, no formal notice has been initiated, prompting criticism from the court regarding the delay in taking appropriate legal steps. The respondents cite suspected tax evasion as the reason for the bank account freeze but acknowledge the lack of a notice due to logistical challenges.

In conclusion, the court has allowed the petitioner to use the overdraft facilities from specific banks while scheduling a further hearing to address the issues raised regarding the freezing of bank accounts without proper legal procedures and the potential adverse impact on the MSME's financial health.