2021 (11) TMI 689 - HC - GST

Attachment of Bank Account of petitioner - section 83(1) of the CGST Act - HELD THAT - Mr. Jetly learned senior advocate for the respondents seeks 6 (six) months time to complete the proceedings. Mr. Mishra informs that the petitioner does not intend to file any further reply. In such circumstances we expect the office of the Principal Commissionerate to proceed to decide the show-cause notice issued to the petitioner without wasting any further time. While rejecting the prayer of Mr. Jetly we direct the adjudicating authority i.e. the Additional Commissioner to decide the show-cause notice in accordance with law and upon granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as early as possible and preferably within two months from date of receipt of a copy of this order. All contentions are left open for being urged by the petitioner before the adjudicating authority. This writ petition shall be listed on 28th January 2022 for reporting compliance of this order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to attachment of bank account under section 83(1) of the CGST Act.
2. Allegation of mala fide action by the office of the Principal Commissioner.
3. Request for interim relief to lift the order of attachment.
4. Delay in concluding proceedings despite the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice.
5. Request for time extension to complete proceedings.
6. Direction to the adjudicating authority to decide the show-cause notice promptly.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the attachment of their bank account under section 83(1) of the CGST Act, initiated by the office of the Principal Commissioner. The petitioner sought interim relief to lift the attachment, alleging mala fide action. However, the court rejected the prayer for interim relief, citing the need to satisfy exceptions laid down by the Supreme Court in previous cases.

2. The court noted the proactive approach of the Principal Commissioner's office in attaching the bank account without waiting for court orders. Despite the petitioner's response to the show-cause notice, the proceedings were yet to conclude. The respondents requested a six-month extension to complete the proceedings, while the petitioner indicated no intention to file further replies. The court directed the adjudicating authority to decide the show-cause notice promptly, granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within two months from the date of the court's order.

3. The court emphasized the need for the Principal Commissionerate to act promptly and conclude the proceedings without delay. The writ petition was scheduled for compliance reporting in January 2022, with parties instructed to complete their pleadings in the meantime. All contentions were left open for the petitioner to present before the adjudicating authority during the proceedings.