2021 (5) TMI 194 - HC - GST

Validity of attachment order - Seeking interim relief sought, that is for lifting of attachment of bank account pending appeal - service of speaking order duly made or not - HELD THAT - Service by e-mail is thus an accepted mode of service and in the present case, I am given to understand by the learned Government Advocate that the order has been served by e-mail. I am not inclined to go into this disputed question of fact, since the petitioner, at this juncture, would state that it wishes to file a statutory appeal challenging order of assessment. The petitioner may do so within a period of four (4) weeks from today in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in a series of judgments, viz., IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER and IN RE COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION 2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER extending the time for filing of appeal till 14.03.2021. Interim relief sought, that is for lifting of attachment of bank account pending appeal - HELD THAT - The same cannot be considered as the details in relation to the balance available in the bank account are not placed. Had the same been produced, there could have been a direction to the authorities to set aside a portion of amount in satisfaction of the dues and permit operation of the bank account. Let the petitioner approach the first appellate authority with an application for interim protection, which may be considered, if and when filed, in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of attachment dated 10.03.2021 based on delayed service of assessment order dated 17.02.2020.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the attachment order citing delayed receipt of the assessment order served via post on 30.03.2021. In contrast, the Government Advocate asserted that the order was sent via email on the same day, including both the speaking order and summary. The mode of service was crucial as per Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allows service through various methods, including email. Despite the dispute over the mode of service, the petitioner expressed intent to file a statutory appeal against the assessment order within four weeks, relying on Supreme Court decisions extending the limitation period for appeals.

Interim Relief:
The petitioner sought interim relief to lift the bank account attachment pending appeal, but the court couldn't consider it due to lack of information on the available balance. The court suggested approaching the first appellate authority for interim protection by submitting the necessary details for consideration in accordance with the law.

Conclusion:
The Writ Petition was disposed of with no costs, allowing the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within four weeks without limitation constraints. The court advised on seeking interim relief through the first appellate authority concerning the bank account attachment, contingent on providing the required information for a decision in compliance with legal procedures.