2023 (9) TMI 788 - HC - GST

Seeking defreezing of petitioner's bank account - freezing not to be operative beyond a period of one year - Jurisdiction to pass such order - order not issued by the Commissioner, but by an officer of a lower rank - HELD THAT - In terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act, no order of provisional attachment could be issued by any officer other than the Commissioner, and third, that the conditions as stipulated under Section 83 of the CGST Act, that is, if the Commissioner is satisfied, that it is necessary in the interest of the Revenue to issue such an order is not reflected in the impugned attachment order. Revenue on advance notice states, at the outset, that a communication is being issued to the concerned bank to clarify that the order is no longer operative. He also states that the officers of the GST Department have been sensitised on the nature of such an order and their jurisdiction to issue the same. It is considered apposite to direct that the concerned bank (Bandhan Bank) will not interdict the operations of the petitioner s bank account on the basis of the impugned order dated 27.04.2022 - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the validity of the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the authority of the officer issuing the attachment order.

Validity of Provisional Attachment:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.04.2022, which provisionally attached their bank account. The challenge was based on three grounds. Firstly, it was argued that under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, any order under Section 83 cannot be operative beyond one year. Secondly, it was contended that the order was not issued by the Commissioner as required by Section 83 of the CGST Act but by an officer of a lower rank. Thirdly, it was argued that the conditions stipulated under Section 83, specifically the satisfaction of the Commissioner regarding the necessity in the interest of revenue, were not reflected in the impugned attachment order.

Authority of Officer Issuing Order:
The petitioner raised an issue regarding the authority of the officer who issued the attachment order. It was pointed out that under Section 83 of the CGST Act, only the Commissioner has the authority to issue orders of provisional attachment. The petitioner argued that the order in question was issued by an officer of a lower rank, which was not in compliance with the statutory provisions.

Decision and Order:
The counsel for the Revenue informed the court that a communication was being sent to the concerned bank to clarify that the order was no longer operative. Additionally, it was stated that the officers of the GST Department had been sensitized on the nature of such orders and their jurisdiction to issue them. Despite this, the court directed the concerned bank (Bandhan Bank) not to interdict the operations of the petitioner's bank account based on the impugned order dated 27.04.2022. The court disposed of the petition, stating that no further orders were required, and all pending applications were also disposed of.