2023 (1) TMI 580 - HC - GST

Attachment of Bank account of petitioner - Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/S. JAYCHEM ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD. VERSUS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, NAGPUR ZONAL UNIT ORS. 2021 (7) TMI 430 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT dealt with a challenge to an action taken under Section 83 of CGST Act, where it was held that Since the petitioner has not taken to recourse to subrule (5) of Rule 159 of the said Rules, we decline interference at this stage. However, we grant the petitioner a week s time to approach the Additional Director General under the said provision and if such an approach is made, a reasoned order shall be passed after extending an opportunity of hearing. We find no reason, nor we are shown any, as to why we should not take the same view as taken in the case of Jaychem Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. and ask the Petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 159 (5) of the GST Rules for revocation of the attachment - The contention of the Petitioner that the authority will not be able to decide the issue of jurisdiction is not correct as if the Petitioner demonstrates that the action taken under Section 83 of the Act is not proper in law and on facts, the concerned Authority can only release the attachment as per the said provision. The grievance of the Petitioner that the bank account has remained attached for a long period of time, is to be noted but partially it is the Petitioner to blame for not taking recourse to Rule 159(5) of the Rules early - Be that as it may, since the bank account is attached in April 2022, we direct if the Petitioner approaches the authority under Rule 159 (5) of the Rules within one week, the concerned Authority will make an endeavour to take a decision thereupon as per law - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to action under Section 83 of Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017; Jurisdiction of Respondent Authorities.

Analysis:
The Petitioner challenged the action taken by the Respondents under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017, regarding the attachment of a bank account. The Petitioner contended that as a registered person under the Tamil Nadu GST Act, the Respondent Authorities under the MGST Act did not have jurisdiction over the Petitioner. The issue of jurisdiction was raised by the Petitioner, invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court.

The Respondents relied on a previous decision of a Division Bench in a similar case to argue that the Petitioner should first utilize Rule 159(5) of the Maharashtra GST Rules to address the case on its merits. The Division Bench's decision in the case referred to by the Respondents involved a challenge to an attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner in that case had also raised jurisdictional issues and cited judgments from other High Courts. The Division Bench emphasized the importance of exhausting the remedy provided under Rule 159(5) before seeking judicial intervention.

The Court, following the precedent set in the previous case, directed the Petitioner to approach the concerned authority under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules for revocation of the attachment. The Court clarified that if the Petitioner can demonstrate that the action taken under Section 83 was improper in law and on facts, the concerned authority has the power to release the attachment. The Court noted the Petitioner's delay in utilizing the remedy under Rule 159(5) but granted a timeframe for the Petitioner to approach the authority and directed the authority to make a decision within three weeks of the application.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the Writ Petition, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedure under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules before seeking judicial intervention. The Court allowed the Petitioner to address the attachment issue through the appropriate authority within a specified timeframe, ensuring the resolution of the matter in accordance with the law.