2019 (4) TMI 847 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN - the concerned officer has once again passed an order in identical terms only by changing the date of the order - Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Held that - It appears that the officers of the concerned department think that they are above the law. This court however, would like to peruse the files pertaining to the impugned order. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 15.4.2019. In the meanwhile, by way of ad interim relief, the impugned order dated 8.3.2019 passed by the respondent provisionally attaching the property of the petitioner under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 /Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is hereby stayed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Provisional attachment of bank accounts under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Challenge to the impugned order of attachment through a writ petition.
3. Observations on the necessity of provisional attachment to protect government revenue.
4. Caution to authorities regarding the exercise of powers under section 83 of the GGST Act.
5. Identically worded subsequent provisional attachment orders and non-compliance with court findings.
6. Concerns over the conduct of the concerned officer and lack of file presentation.
7. Stay on the impugned order and direction for the production of original file before the Court.

Analysis:

1. The judgment dealt with the provisional attachment of bank accounts under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The initial order of attachment was challenged through a writ petition, leading to a judgment setting aside the impugned order due to observations that the authorities were not justified in resorting to such a drastic coercive measure without proper assessment proceedings. The court emphasized the necessity for the Commissioner to form an opinion that the taxpayer would not be able to pay the dues before taking such actions.

2. The court cautioned the authorities on exercising powers under section 83 of the GGST Act, emphasizing the need to balance the interest of government revenue with the ability of the taxpayer to continue their business. It highlighted that drastic actions like provisional attachment should not be a routine measure but should consider the background, financial position, and history of the taxpayer to determine if such actions are justified.

3. Subsequently, despite the court's earlier decision, the same bank accounts were provisionally attached again with identically worded orders. The court expressed concerns over the non-compliance with its findings and principles laid down in the previous judgment. It noted the disregard for the court's directions and principles by the concerned officer, leading to a stay on the impugned order and a direction for the production of the original file for perusal.

4. The judgment also raised issues regarding the conduct of the concerned officer, highlighting the lack of file presentation despite being personally present before the court. The court expressed frustration over the officer's disregard for the court's previous findings and principles, emphasizing the need for compliance with the law and proper adherence to court directions.

5. In response to the identified issues, the court stayed the impugned order of provisional attachment and directed the Joint Commissioner of Sales Tax to ensure the production of the original file for the impugned order. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders and the need for proper adherence to legal procedures in such matters.