2021 (10) TMI 633

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CGST Act and after elaborate consideration, laid down the manner and mode in which the powers are to be exercised. None of the stipulations specified in the aforesaid judgment are evident in the orders impugned in this writ petition. Thus there is non-application of mind to the purport of power exercisable by the second respondent under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The order impugned are liable to be stayed - there will be a stay of operation of Exts.P9, P9(A) and P9(B) attachment order for a period of 8 weeks.
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS Petitioner: (Represented By Its Managing Director, Mr. Suresh Kumar. P.P) Respondent: None ORDER BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. Admit. 2. Adv. Sreelal N. Warriar takes notice on behalf of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of 2021. After hearing the parties therein the Division Bench refused to interfere by its order dated 04.08.2021. 6. Within eight weeks thereafter, Ext. P9 series is seen to be issued, once again invoking the powers under section 83 of the CGST Act and ordering the provisional attachments of 7 accounts through Ext.P9, Ext.P9(A), and Ext.P9(B). 7. In the decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. [AIR 2021 SC 2114], the Hon'ble Supreem Court had occasion to consider the exercise of powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act and after elaborate consideration, laid down the manner and mode in which the powers are to be exercised. Condition No.4, 5, 6 and 7 are relevant and the same is extracted as below: (i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the purport of power exercisable by the second respondent under Section 83 of the CGST Act. 9. In this context, I also bear in mind that the crippling effect an order of provisional attachment, on the bank accounts of a running establishment can have. Petitioner asserts that it is a running establishment and the annual audited reports, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8 shows that the petitioner is a running establishment In view of all the circumstances, mentioned above both legal and factual, I am prima facie satisfied that the order impugned are liable to be stayed. Accordingly there will be a stay of operation of Exts.P9, P9(A) and P9(B) attachment order for a period of 8 weeks. Needless to mention in view of this stay that there .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X