2022 (6) TMI 360 - HC - GST

Attachment of property of petitioner - before completing the reassessment process, now invoking the provisions of Section 79 of the GST Act, the attachment GST DRC-16 has been issued - Section 83 of GST Act - HELD THAT - Though it has been mentioned as if it was issued under Section 79 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, we find that such attachment order can be construed only as a provisional attachment order made under Section 83 of the said Act. Section 83 enable the revenue to issue provisional attachment order to protect revenue in certain cases and if such orders are issued that will be valid for one year, within which, if the assessment process is completed based on which further proceedings can be initiated by the revenue. Therefore, merely because of the wrong quoting of the provision, the order impugned before the Writ Court cannot be successfully assailed by the appellant, as the law is well settled in this regard. Non-quoting of the provision of law or wrong quoting of the same may not vitiate the proceedings on that ground itself. There is absolutely no scope for interfering with the order of the learned Judge, which is impugned in this Writ Appeal - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order attaching property based on Form GST DRC-16 issued by revenue.

Analysis:
The writ appeal challenged an order from the Writ Court regarding the attachment of property based on Form GST DRC-16. The appellant contended that the earlier litigation involved three assessment orders challenged in writ petitions, leading to conditional directions to deposit a specific amount for reassessment. The appellant's delay in making the deposit was rectified through extension applications and subsequent compliance. Despite seeking personal hearings, the revenue issued the impugned proceedings under Form GST DRC-16 before completing the reassessment process as directed by the court in the previous litigation. The appellant argued that the attachment order was premature under Section 79 of the GST Act, as it should only occur after reassessment. However, the court clarified that the attachment was provisional under Section 83 of the Act, valid for one year to protect revenue during assessment.

The court emphasized that incorrect citation of the law provision does not invalidate proceedings. It held that the attachment order, though mistakenly referred to as under Section 79, was a valid provisional attachment under Section 83. The court dismissed the writ appeal, stating there was no basis to interfere with the Writ Court's order. It allowed the appellant to complete the reassessment process as initiated, and only after the outcome of reassessment, further action could be taken regarding the provisional attachment order. The court concluded by dismissing the writ appeal without costs and closing the connected miscellaneous petition.