9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 889 - HC - GSTProvisional Attachment of petitioner's bank Account - Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 159(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - The issue brought before us is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that The formation of an opinion by the Commissioner under Section 83(1) must be based on tangible material bearing on the necessity of ordering a provisional attachment for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. The impugned communication dated 1.2.2021 issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 is set aside. The aforesaid bank account of the petitioner may be released from attachment, forthwith - Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to communication dated 1.2.2021 under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 159(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a communication dated 1.2.2021, where respondent no.2 attached the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that there was no factual basis for the attachment and that its business was adversely affected. The petitioner cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that the power to order attachment must be strictly fulfilled and based on tangible material to protect government revenue interests. The Revenue, on the other hand, argued that investigations and adjudication were pending against the petitioner, justifying the attachment to secure potential demands. They relied on a decision where it was noted that the attachment was issued to protect government revenue interests and that the petitioners had the opportunity to object but had not done so. The High Court considered the arguments and referred to the Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioner. They found the impugned communication to be insufficient and not meeting the standards set by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the communication dated 1.2.2021 was set aside, and the petitioner's bank account was ordered to be released from attachment immediately. The writ petition was allowed, but the respondent was given the opportunity to issue a fresh order in compliance with the law.
|
