Judicial Scrutiny of the power of provisional attachment – Section 83 of the CGST Act

[Puneet Agrawal]

Introduction

GST law provides a powerful tool to the administrative authorities to protect revenue of the government by allowing attachment of property under Section 83 of an accused taxable person. Understanding the potential risk of abuse of such power, legislature has placed certain requirements that need to be met before authorities can attach property of the accused. Scrutinizing the powers allotted to the authorities as well as requirements to be complied with under the Section 83, various Hon’ble High Courts as well as the Supreme Court have analyzed the section to ensure that its application does not go beyond its actual purpose. However, a recent amendment to the section brought vide Finance Act 2021 further expands scope of the section. Due to the inherit nature of the section, power allotted under Section will always be prone to abuse hence we are of the opinion that further widening its scope vide Finance Act 2021 risks making the legislation hostile to businesses.

Analysis

During the pendency of proceedings, as a measure to protect the revenue, the administrative authorities are generally empowered to attach the property including the bank accounts of the assessee. The purpose behind attachment is to ensure that the government revenue does not suffer any significant loss and is able to recover the amount of tax due. Attachment of bank account ensures that the taxable person is not able to divert the funds/ property in a manner which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. However, it is important to see that the attachment of accounts should only be made in the exceptional cases where there are highly likely that the assessee would defraud the government and would divert its funds. Due to attachment of property, especially the liquid assets such as bank accounts, the businessmen suffer a great difficulty, and it is almost impossible for them to continue his business. Since attaching the property is fatal to the business and it may lead to closure of whole business or it may create a major setback thus, it is ultimately damaging to the whole economy. Therefore, it is important that department invokes its powers of attaching the accounts with utmost caution and care and this should not be applied blindly even in bonafide cases.     

In the GST law also, the legislature has enacted a provision to attach the property of the taxable person. The power to attach any property including the bank accounts is governed by Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred as the “CGST Act”). The relevant section has been reproduced below for ready reference –

83. "(1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed."

(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).

On a bare perusal of Section 83 of the CGST Act. it is amply clear that the Commissioner is given wide powers for attaching the property including the bank accounts of the taxable person. On the perusal of Section 83 of the CGST Act, it is evident that following are the requirements/ conditions that needs to be fulfilled before exercising the powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act:

1. Order should be passed by Commissioner;

2. Proceeding under Section 62 or 63 or 64 or 67 or 73 or 74 should be pending;

3. Commissioner must form an opinion;

4. Order should be passed to protect interest of revenue;

5. It must be necessary to attach property.”

Only when all the requirements/ ingredients of Section 83 of the CGST Act are fulfilled that the Commissioner should invoke the powers conferred under Section 83 of the CGST Act. 

Since Section 83 has far-reaching implications as even the bank accounts and other liquid assets can be attached, thus, onus on the Commissioner is very high to invoke the powers under the said section very carefully. Further, the bank accounts and other liquid source of funds should be attached as a last resort as the bank is the soul and heart of any business and it is nearly impossible for the business to continue if its bank accounts are seized. In terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment of the property can continue for a long term which may extend to 1 year. Thus, it becomes even more imperative that such a measure shall only be taken in an exceptional circumstance only to protect the interest of revenue and where it is utmost necessary, and when no other option seems to be available.  

Here, we would like to mention that the legislature while drafting Section 83 should have provided a proper guidance and measurable benchmark for invoking the draconian provision of section 83 of the CGST Act. Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is pari materia to section 83 yet there is one major difference between the two is that section 281B of Income Tax Act gives guidance for provisional attachment, but such guidelines are missing in section 83 of the CGST Act.[1]

The legislature while drafting any statute should be very careful and should avoid giving excessive powers to the administration as it generally leads to harassment of the people as well as promote corruption and other unlawful practices. Further, the legislature should avoid allowing unnecessary discretion to the administrative authorities and the law itself should provide clear guidelines, as far as possible in quantifiable terms, especially for application/ invoking the severe/ draconian provisions.       

Where the legislature lacks in drafting the legal provisions and leaves room for misuse of provisions by the administration, the judiciary has a very important role to play. In respect of Section 83 of the CGST Act, the judiciary has understood the plight of the citizens and the serious implications of section 83 and therefore, several courts in numerous cases come to the rescue of the assesses and has allowed relief to them. The Judiciary has interpreted the provision of section 83 and laid down that the power under said section is a drastic measure which the authority may be compelled to take only if the situation demands for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue.  The courts have recognized the restrictive nature of the power of provisional attachment under Section 83 and the need for it to be based on adequate substantive material.

The courts strictly scrutinized attachment orders and have struck down orders where the order have been found arbitrary, unnecessary, or passed without due authority of the law. Few of such landmark orders have been discussed below:

1. In the case of M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS. [2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed in length the power enumerated under section 83 before concluding that the legislature intended the use of this power only when it is necessary and not to be applied just because a property is readily available for being attached. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court applied the doctrine of proportionality which mandates the existence of a proximate or live link between the need for the attachment and the purpose which it is intended to secure. Since the provision has serious consequences, thus, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that all the conditions/ requirements laid out under the section shall be strictly applied before making any provisional attachment on the property. Based on the wording of the section 83, the Hon’ble Apex court held that it is necessary that the commissioner shall initiate provision attachment only when he is of an opinion on the basis of tangible evidence that interest of government cannot be protected unless any such provisional attachment is undertaken. The Court opined that since Section 83 is a draconian provision, thus, the same should be interpreted restrictively. The relevant portion of the judgement has been reproduced below for ready reference –

48 Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to emphasize that before the Commissioner can levy a provisional attachment, there must be a formation of “the opinion” and that it is necessary “so to do” for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. The power to levy a provisional attachment is draconian in nature. By the exercise of the power, a property belonging to the taxable person may be attached, including a bank account. The attachment is provisional and the statute has contemplated an attachment during the pendency of the proceedings under the stipulated statutory provisions noticed earlier. An attachment which is contemplated in section 83 is, in other words, at a stage which is anterior to the finalization of an assessment or the raising of a demand.

49 By utilizing the expression "it is necessary so to do" the legislature has evinced an intent that an attachment is authorized not merely because it is expedient to do so (or profitable or practicable for the revenue to do so) but because it is necessary to do so in order to protect interest of the government revenue. Necessity postulates that the interest of the revenue can be protected only by a provisional attachment without which the interest of the revenue would stand defeated. Necessity in other words postulates a more stringent requirement than a mere expediency. A provisional attachment under Section 83 is contemplated during the pendency of certain proceedings, meaning thereby that a final demand or liability is yet to be crystallized. An anticipatory attachment of this nature must strictly conform to the requirements, both substantive and procedural, embodied in the statute and the rules. The exercise of unguided discretion cannot be permissible because it will leave citizens and their legitimate business activities to the peril of arbitrary power. Each of these ingredients must be strictly applied before a provisional attachment on the property of an assesses can be levied. The Commissioner must be alive to the fact that such provisions are not intended to authorize Commissioners to make preemptive strikes on the property of the assessee, merely because property is available for being attached. There must be a valid formation of the opinion that a provisional attachment is necessary for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue.

50 These expressions in regard to both the purpose and necessity of provisional attachment implicate the doctrine of proportionality. Proportionality mandates the existence of a proximate or live link between the need for the attachment and the purpose which it is intended to secure. It also postulates the maintenance of a proportion between the nature and extent of the attachment and the purpose which is sought to be served by ordering it. Moreover, the words embodied in sub-Section (1) of Section 83, as interpreted above, would leave no manner of doubt that while ordering a provisional attachment the Commissioner must in the formation of the opinion act on the basis of tangible material on the basis of which the formation of opinion is based in regard to the existence of the statutory requirement.

2. Here it is important to mention the case of VALERIUS INDUSTRIES VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2019 (9) TMI 618 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In the said case the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat has pronounced a well elaborated judgment on the powers conferred under Section 83 of the CGST Act.  In the said case the Hon’ble High Court has laid down the principles of construction of Section 83 of the CGST Act. In the said judgment, the Hon’ble High Court has noted that the Commissioner is not authorized to delegate its powers conferred under Section 83 of the CGST Act to the subordinate officers. Further, the Hon’ble courts have elaborated on all the ingredients that should be present for invoking powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act so that the powers conferred is only invoked judiciously without unnecessary harm to the citizens of India.

3. The Hon’ble High Court also observed that reason to believe necessary for the purpose of carrying out inspection, search, and seizure under Section 67 of the CGST Act are not sufficient enough for the purpose of formation of the opinion that it is necessary to provisionally attach the goods or other articles for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. The concluding paras the said judgment has been reproduced below:

52 Our final conclusions may be summarized as under:

[1] The order of provisional attachment before the assessment order is made, may be justified if the assessing authority or any other authority empowered in law is of the opinion that it is necessary to protect the interest of revenue. However, the subjective satisfaction should be based on some credible materials or information and also should be supported by supervening factor. It is not any and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant remote or far-fetching, which would warrant the formation of the belief.

[2] The power conferred upon the authority under Section 83 of the Act for provisional attachment could be termed as a very drastic and far-reaching power. Such power should be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds and reasons.

[3] The power of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act should be exercised by the authority only if there is a reasonable apprehension that the assessee may default the ultimate collection of the demand that is likely to be raised on completion of the assessment. It should, therefore, be exercised with extreme care and caution.

[4] The power under Section 83 of the Act for provisional attachment should be exercised only if there is sufficient material on record to justify the satisfaction that the assessee is about to dispose of wholly or any part of his / her property with a view to thwarting the ultimate collection of demand and in order to achieve the said objective, the attachment should be of the properties and to that extent, it is required to achieve this objective.

[5] The power under Section 83 of the Act should neither be used as a tool to harass the assessee nor should it be used in a manner which may have an irreversible detrimental effect on the business of the assessee.

[6] The attachment of bank account and trading assets should be resorted to only as a last resort or measure. The provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act should not be equated with the attachment in the course of the recovery proceedings.

[7] The authority before exercising power under Section 83 of the Act for provisional attachment should take into consideration two things: (i) whether it is a revenue neutral situation (ii) the statement of “output liability or input credit”. Having regard to the amount paid by reversing the input tax credit if the interest of the revenue is sufficiently secured, then the authority may not be justified in invoking its power under Section 83 of the Act for the purpose of provisional attachment.

4. In the case of BINDAL SMELTING PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE [2020 (1) TMI 569 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana analyzed the powers of the Commissioner in terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act and elaborated the expression “is of the opinion”. The Hon’ble High Court held that the expression “is of the opinion” is similar to the expression “has reasons to believe” and is indicative of subjective satisfaction of commissioner. The Hon’ble court further held that the courts are entitled to determine whether the formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical. Expression ‘necessary’ must also be taken care of. From the order and record, it must come out that actually it was necessary to take drastic action of attachment. The Hon’ble High Court went into analyzing whether the order of provisional attachment issued by the Commissioner would protect interest of revenue or not. In this regard the Hon’ble High Court held that power conferred under Section 83 of the CGST Act drastic and far-reaching power that must be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds and reasons. Relevant portion of the judgment has been reproduced below:

7… Expression ‘is of the opinion’ or ‘has reason to believe’ is of same connotation and is indicative of subjective satisfaction of Commissioner, which depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled law that ‘opinion’ must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing on the formation of the opinion. Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus or live link between the protection of interest and available property which might not be available at the time of recovery of taxes after final adjudication of the dispute. The opinion must be formed in good faith and should not be a mere pretence. Courts are entitled to determine whether the formation of opinion is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical. Expression ‘necessary’ must also be taken care of. From the order and record, it must come out that actually it was necessary to take drastic action of attachment.

…..

The object and intention of Legislature to endow Commissioner with power of attachment under Section 83 is very clear. It is drastic and far-reaching power which must be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds and reasons. The power should be exercised only to protect interest of revenue and not to ruin business of any taxable person. Primarily Section 83 permits to attach property. Property means an asset which may be movable, immovable, tangible, intangible or in the form of some instrument. Cash in hand as well bank account is property, in the form of liquidity which is better than immovable property and directly affects working in the form of working capital of a dealer. A dealer may be having cash in hand or in account in the form of fixed deposit or saving account. The mandate of Section 83 in our considered opinion is to attach amount lying in an account in the form of FDR or saving and it cannot be intention or purport of Section 83 to attach an account having debit balance. No purpose leaving aside securing interest of revenue is going to be achieved except closure of business which cannot be permitted unless and until running of business itself is prohibited by law. The contention of Respondent that they have power to attach bank account irrespective of nature of account cannot be countenanced.

We are of the opinion that Respondent can attach an account only if there is some balance in the form of FDR or savings. The power of attachment of bank account cannot be exercised as per whims and caprices of the Authority. The Commissioner is bound to ensure that by attachment of property or bank account, interest of revenue is going to be protected. In case a property is mortgaged with bank and value of property is less than outstanding dues of bank, provisional attachment is meaningless and action remains only on paper. In the absence of record showing that interest of revenue is protected by attaching property or bank account, action deserves to be declared as taken without application of mind and formation of opinion on the basis of cogent material. Thus, attachment of current account having debit balance does not protect interest of revenue, instead merely ruins the business of a dealer. Such an action of attachment of “over cash credit” account for the sake of recovery of confirmed demand, may in some peculiar case, may be still permitted but not at the stage of pending investigation.

5. In the recent judgment of M/S. JAY AMBEY FILAMENT PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2020 (10) TMI 1214 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat discussed at length the meaning of term “opinion” as appearing in Section 83 of the CGST Act. In the said judgment, it was held that there must be material based on which alone the authority could form its opinion that it has become necessary to order provisional attachment of the goods or the bank account to protect the interest of the Government revenue. Further, it was held that the existence of relevant material is a pre-condition to the formation of opinion. It was also held that the authority under the Act is not required to state the reasons based on which it has formed its opinion but if the order of attachment is under challenged that he had no reasons to believe, in that case, the authority must disclose the materials upon which his belief was formed (the Supreme Court case in the matter of Sheonath Singh was relied). In the absence of any reason for issuing the order of provisional attachment the Hon’ble Court quashed the order of provisional attachment. The relevant provision of the said judgment has been reproduced below:

5. Section 83 talks about the opinion which is necessary to be formed for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue. Any opinion of the authority to be formed is not subject to objective test. The language leaves no room for the relevance of an official examination as to the sufficiency of the ground on which the authority may act in forming its opinion. But, at the same time, there must be material based on which alone the authority could form its opinion that it has become necessary to order provisional attachment of the goods or the bank account to protect the interest of the Government revenue. The existence of relevant material is a pre-condition to the formation of opinion. The use of the word “may” indicates not only the discretion, but an obligation to consider that a necessity has arisen to pass an order of provisional attachment with a view to protect the interest of the Government revenue. Therefore, the opinion to be formed by the Commissioner or take a case by the delegated authority cannot be on imaginary ground, wishful thinking, howsoever laudable that may be. Such a course is impermissible in law. At the cost of repetition, the formation of the opinion, though subjective, must be based on some credible material disclosing that is necessary to provisionally attach the goods or the bank account for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue. The statutory requirement of reasonable belief is to safeguard the citizen from vexatious proceedings. “Belief’ is a mental operation of accepting a fact as true, so, without any fact, no belief can be formed. It is equally true that it is not necessary for the authority under the Act to state reasons for its belief. But if it is challenged that he had no reasons to believe, in that case, he must disclose the materials upon which his belief was formed, as it has been held by the Supreme Court in Sheonath Singh’s case [AIR 1971 SC 2451], that the Court can examine the materials to find out whether an honest and reasonable person can base his reasonable belief upon such materials although the sufficiency of the reasons for the belief cannot be investigated by the Court. In the case at hand, the Learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents very fairly submitted that not only the impugned order of provisional attachment is bereft of any reason, but there is nothing on the original file on the basis of which this Court may be in a position to ascertain the genuineness of the belief formed by the authority. The word “necessary” means indispensable, requisite; indispensably requisite, useful, incidental or conducive; essential; unavoidable; impossible to be otherwise; not to be avoided; inevitable. The word “necessary” must be construed in the connection in which it is used. The formation of the opinion by the authority should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material available on record that it had become necessary to order provisional attachment of the goods or the bank account or other articles which may be useful or relevant to any proceedings under the Act. [see : Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel and Others v. State of Gujarat - AIR 2008 SC 1771]….

11. In the absence of any cogent or credible material, if the subjective satisfaction is arrived at by the authority concerned for the purpose of passing an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act, then such action amounts to malice in law. Malice in its legal sense means such malice as may be assumed from the doing of a wrongful act intentionally but also without just cause or excuse or for want of reasonable or probably cause. Any use of discretionary power exercised for an unauthorized purpose amounts to malice in law. It is immaterial whether the authority acted in good faith or bad faith. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. S.R. Venkatraman v. Union of India, reported in (1979) ILLJ 25 (SC) where it had been held :

6. While discussing the provision of Section 83 of the CGST Act it is important to refer to Vinod Kumar Murlidhar Chechani Proprietor of VINODKUMAR MURLIDHAR CHECHANI PROPRIETOR OF M/S CHECHANI TRADING CO. VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 OTHER (S) [2021 (1) TMI 795 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. In the said judgment the Hon’ble court has made an important observation that over a period of time in each and every matter in which proceedings under Section 67 of the Act are initiated, an order of provisional attachment of the bank accounts under Section 83 of the Act would follow. This mechanical exercise of the power is not appreciated. The Legislature has thought fit to confer upon the authority the power to provisionally attach the property of the assessee in the hope that such power is not exercised casually but, only after due and proper application of mind. A mechanical or casual exercise of such power will dilute the very efficacy of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. Every day there are not less than ten matters on the subject of Section 83 of the Act in the cause-list. When there are plethora of judgments explaining Section 83 of the Act in detail, then why so much of litigation in the High Court. Further, the court has ruled that mechanical application of Section 83 should be stop at the earliest when there is plethora of judgment on the subject. Further, the Hon’ble court directed the registry to forward one copy each to Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Union of India and chairman of CBDT at the earliest and the Court also requested the Union of India as well as the CBDT to read this judgment thoroughly and consider issuing appropriate instructions or guidelines at the earliest with respect to the exercise of power under Section 83 of the Act, 2017.         

7. Similar relief is allowed in the following cases:

   1. M/S PATRAN STEEL ROLLING MILL VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, UNIT 2 [2018 (12) TMI 1441 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] In this case Hon’ble Court cautioned the concerned authority that while exercising powers under section 83 of The CGST Act, the authorities should try to balance the interest of the Government revenue as well as a dealer to ensure that while the interest of the revenue is safeguarded, the dealer is also in a position to continue with his business, because it is only if the dealer continues with the business that he would generate more revenue.

   2. Gujarat High Court in the case PIYUSH SHAMJIBHAI VASOYA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND 2 OTHER (S) [2021 (2) TMI 291 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] struck down the attachment order under Section 83 as there was no proceeding pending under Section 62 or Section 63 or Section 64 or Section 67 or Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act hence Section 83 cannot have been invoked.

   3. KAISH IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST RANGE (IV) [2020 (1) TMI 933 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]

   4. PROEX FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. [2021 (1) TMI 365 - DELHI HIGH COURT]

   5. ROSHNI SANA JAISWAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAXES, GST DELHI (EAST) [2021 (5) TMI 528 - DELHI HIGH COURT]

From all the judgments discussed above, it is clear that the courts have consistently concluded that the powers allowed under Section 83 of the CGST Act are exceptional in nature and they can only be applied if all the conditions as provided in Section 83 of the CGST Act are met. Further, it is well elaborated by the courts that the opinion in terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act should be made on the basis of the tangible evidence and it should not be based on the whims and fancies of the Commissioner. The courts have time and again concluded if at all attachment needs to be made then the same should be done in respect of the immovable property and the attachment of bank accounts should be kept as last resort.        

Amendment proposed vide Finance Act 2021

Here it is pertinent to refer to Finance Act 2021 which has substituted the current provision of Section 83. The newly substituted provision is very wide in scope as compared to the present as it allows the commissioner to attach the property of person other than the taxable person. Also, as per the newly substituted Section 83 of the CGST Act, the applicability of section 83 has been widened as it can now be invoked where the proceedings are pending in terms of chapter XII, XIV and XV.

It is clearly evident from the plethora of cases that the authorities are invoking the powers under Section 83 in the mechanical manner and without proper application of their mind. Even in such a scenario of misuse of power by the authority, the legislature has opted to further expand the scope of the provision by giving more powers to them.

Such action of legislature appears to be in contrast to the views and opinions conveyed by the judiciary by way of numerous court judgments in the recent past.

As pointed out earlier, Section 83 of the CGST Act lacks clarity regarding the circumstances or providing any guidelines or quantifiable benchmark for its application. In the absence of such guidelines, giving such an immense power to the administration will only create havoc/ unrest in the business community and they would lose the trust in whole system. The legislature cannot proceed on the pretext that every business in India is indulged in the fraudulent activities. It is imperative that the legislature takes into due consideration the past events and learning in numerous instances; that whenever excessive powers have been given to the administration, then they have always misused them for their gains at the cost of the interest of the nation, the business and citizens of the country.

Giving such uncanalised and unguided powers to any administrative body only leads harassment of the people and gives rise to fraudulent activities such as corruption.

Although, Section 83 as substituted by the Finance Act 2021 is still not made effective but as and when it will be made effective, it would definitely open the flood gates for unnecessary litigation which would ultimately lead to wastage of time, money and resources.

Thus, we would like to request the legislature to again consider their decision for substituting Section 83 so as to make the GST law business friendly as it was initially envisaged.

Article by:

Shuchi Agrawal ([email protected]) 

Senior Manager 

ALA LEGAL, Advocates & Solicitor

Rushil Anand ([email protected])

Associate

ALA LEGAL, Advocates & Solicitor

[1] Noted by Hon’ble Court in the case of Valerius Industries V. UOI 2019 (9) TMI 618 - Guj

Discussions to this article

[Sumit Srivastava]

Ecellent compiltion by the autohr. wondefully supplimented by case law. Realy informtive. Thanks

[niranjan gupta]

Excellent submissions made by Adv. Puneet Agrawal. Unfortunate part is that the legislatures are not understanding the seriousness of the issue and legislating such laws and how can we expect "Commissioner" to form a reasonable opinion.

I think, the time has come that the JUDICIARY should held responsible to the authority in person if they fails to form a reasonable opinion in the matter in execution of Laws of the Land.

With regard to execution by the Authorities under section 83 of the CGST Act, a SOP should be issued based on the judgments by the CBIC.