9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 104 - HC - GSTProvisional attachment of current account of petitioner - impugned order proceeds on the premise that proceedings under Section 122 of CGST Act have been launched against the petitioner through no show cause notice in form DRC-01 under Rule 142 has been issued so for - HELD THAT - It is found that Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 sets out the procedure to be followed for issuing a provisional attachment order. Under Rule 159 (5) a person whose property is attached may within 7 days of such attachment, file an objection to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment. After such objection is filed, the Commissioner is required to offer the person objecting an opportunity of being heard and thereafter pass appropriate order in Form GST DRC-23, if he is of the view that property is required to be released from attachment. Clearly the petitioner has approached this Court without availing the aforementioned remedy available under the law - it is noted that the Bank account of the petitioner has remained under attachment since long once under order dated 02.04.2022 and thereafter under the order dated 21.04.2023 but partially the petitioner herself is to be blamed for not taking recourse to Rule 159 (5) of the Rules early - Since the bank account of the petitioner has remained attached since April 2022, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the respondent no. 1 within two weeks from today, under Rule 159 (5) by filing objections the respondent no. 1 shall make all endeavour to take a decision thereupon as per law expeditiously preferably within three weeks of filing such objection under Rule 159 (5) of the CGST rules, 2017. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The legality, propriety, and correctness of the order provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 159 (1) of the CGST Rules '2017'. Details of Judgment: Issue 1: Validity of the attachment order The petitioner challenged the order dated 21.04.2023, arguing that it was invalid as it lacked a DIN number and did not follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 159 of the CGST Rules 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was issued without proper notice under Section 122 of the Act, citing legal precedents to support the argument. Issue 2: Respondent's stance The respondent, representing the Revenue, stated that the attachment was done to protect the revenue's interest after finding discrepancies in GST registrations linked to the petitioner's PAN number. The respondent argued that the attachment was lawful under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 159 (1) of the CGST Rules 2017. It was contended that the petitioner should have first filed objections under Rule 159 (5) before approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Judgment The Court noted that Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 outlines the procedure for issuing a provisional attachment order. It highlighted that the petitioner did not avail the remedy of filing objections under Rule 159 (5) within 7 days of attachment. The Court directed the petitioner to file objections under Rule 159 (5) within two weeks and instructed the respondent to decide on the objections expeditiously, preferably within three weeks. The Court disposed of the writ petition with these observations and directions, without imposing any costs.
|
