2021 (10) TMI 142 - HC - GST

Provisional attachments of Bank Accounts - seeking directions that the accounts may be allowed to be operated to the extent of essential expenditure to run the business and to clear outstanding dues - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the petitioner has filed its objections to the attachment under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (for short CGST Rules, 2017 ). This Court in WATERMELON MANAGEMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL TAX, GST DELHI (EAST) ANR. 2020 (6) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that writs cannot be entertained when the petitioner has an alternative effective remedy before the competent authority. Since in the present case, objection under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 has already been filed, this Court disposes of the present writ petition and application by directing the respondent to decide the objections filed by the petitioner by way of a reasoned order in accordance with law on or before 05th October, 2021 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment of bank accounts under CGST Rules, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the provisional attachment of their bank accounts by the Commissioner, CGST & CX, Delhi East. The petitioner sought directions to operate the accounts for essential business expenses and outstanding dues. The petitioner's counsel assured the court that the current balance in the bank accounts would be maintained. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel argued that serious allegations were under investigation against the petitioner-company, with claims of non-cooperation by a former director, Mr. Virender Singh. The petitioner clarified that Mr. Virender Singh was no longer associated with the company, and his whereabouts were unknown.

The court noted that the petitioner had already filed objections to the attachment under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Referring to a previous judgment, the court emphasized that writs cannot be entertained when an alternative effective remedy exists before the competent authority. Therefore, the court disposed of the present writ petition, directing the respondent to decide on the objections by way of a reasoned order before 5th October, 2021. The court explicitly stated that it did not comment on the merits of the case, keeping the rights and contentions of all parties open. The respondent's counsel was instructed to promptly communicate the court's order to the concerned parties.