2024 (9) TMI 446 - HC - GST

Provisional attachment of a petitioner's property - it is submitted that the impugned order is infirm inasmuch as it does not reflect the opinion of the Commissioner - HELD THAT - The language of Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatorily to be followed as it visits the petitioner with penal consequences. It was, therefore, necessary that the impugned order under Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, indicate the reasons which weighed with the Commissioner to form an opinion, that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government of revenue and order of provisional attachment was necessary. The mandate of Section 83(1) of the said Act enjoins upon the Commissioner to pass an order in writing in that regard, the very purpose of which is to embody the reasons for forming such an opinion, which then can be tested in a challenge raised thereto. However, in absence of any reason for forming such an opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is accordingly hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner to record reasons in writing for forming such an opinion in case he deems it fit and proper again to do so - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The High Court of Bombay quashed an order of provisional attachment of a petitioner's property under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The court found that the order did not contain reasons for forming the opinion to protect government revenue, as required by law. The matter was remitted back to the Commissioner for proper recording of reasons. The petition was allowed with no costs.