2023 (12) TMI 1054 - HC - GST

Provisional attachment of the Bank account u/s 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 - challenge to attachment order on the ground that the condition precedent to initiate proceeding under Chapter XII, XIV and XV of the GST Act is absent in the present case - HELD THAT - So far as objection of the respondents with regard to maintainability of the writ petition before this Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, is not sustainable since cause of action is a bundle of fact and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court since petitioner s bank account in Kolkata was attached though may it be by an authority in Guwahati and in view of the fact that petitioner is a registered person in Kolkata and as such writ petition before this Court against the impugned order passed by the authority at Guwahati is maintainable. So far as challenge by the petitioner the legality and validity of the impugned order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act on the ground of non pendency or initiation of any proceeding against the petitioner is concerned, on reading conjointly Section 1(2), Section 6(1), Section 83, Section 122(1) and Section 122 (1A), Clause (i), (ii), (vii) and (ix) thereunder and judgments, relevant circulars and notification and taking into consideration materials found against the petitioners during investigation, CGST Guwahati authority s action of attaching the bank account of the petitioner provisionally and the impugned order to this effect is very much legal, valid and within jurisdiction and is not liable to be interfered by this writ Court. This Writ Petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Jurisdiction of respondent no. 1 to invoke Section 83 of the CGST Act for provisional attachment.
3. Legality and validity of the provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Territorial Jurisdiction
The Court examined whether it had territorial jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order dated 22.03.2023. The petitioner argued that since the bank account was maintained in Kolkata and the petitioner is a registered person in Kolkata, the High Court of Calcutta has jurisdiction. The Court agreed, stating that part of the cause of action arose within its territorial jurisdiction, making the writ petition maintainable.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1
The petitioner contended that respondent no. 1 lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 83 of the CGST Act for provisional attachment without initiating or having pending proceedings against the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the impugned order was issued without any proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV, and XV of the CGST Act, and thus, was non est in law. The Court, however, found that the CGST Guwahati authority had jurisdiction based on tangible material and the necessity to protect government revenue. The Court cited relevant sections and judgments to support its conclusion that the respondent's actions were legal and valid.

Issue 3: Legality and Validity of Provisional Attachment
The petitioner challenged the legality of the provisional attachment order, arguing that it was not issued in the prescribed format (Form GST DRC-22) and lacked the necessary conditions precedent. The petitioner also argued that the order was arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The Court examined the provisions of Section 83, Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, and relevant judgments. It concluded that the impugned order was issued in accordance with the law and within the jurisdiction of the CGST Guwahati authority. The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the legality and validity of the provisional attachment order.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the writ petition, holding that it had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The Court found that the provisional attachment order issued by the CGST Guwahati authority was legal, valid, and within jurisdiction, and thus, not liable to be interfered with.