Since the impugned attachment of bank account has been found to be without jurisdiction, availability of alternative remedy in the form of filing objection under rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules would be no bar to the petitioner from seeking relief under writ jurisdiction.
Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Provisional Attachment of Bank Account –-- The petitioner sought quashing of provisional attachment order dated 19.06.2020 attaching the bank account. The petitioner rented out commercial premises on leave and license basis receiving license fees from the licensees. He because of Covid-19 pandemic, had not received any license fee from March, 2020 and accordingly no GST was deposited from March, 2020. Resultantly, petitioner submitted GST return for June, 2020 declaring NIL tax. On or about the 3rd week of June, 2020, he came to know that his bank account was provisionally attached by respondent. Since petitioner was not served with a copy of the provisional attachment order, a copy of the same was sought for from the Bank. The provisional attachment order mentioned that proceedings have been launched against the petitioner under section 67, but the petitioner submitted that no notice of proceedings under section 67 has been served upon the petitioner; besides, no such proceedings were pending. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy provided under rule 159 (5), which the petitioner has availed. The petitioner submitted that even if the representation dated 01.07.2020 is construed to be an application under rule 159 (5), but no such hearing was granted to the petitioner. The respondent carried out proceedings in respect of other firms with which petitioner are nowhere connected. The business entities belonging to the petitioner's wife or son are concerned, it is contended that those are distinct business entities having separate legal identity. The court observed that there was no proceeding against petitioner firm therefore, the invocation of power under section 83 against the petitioner would not be justified. The record does not disclose any authorization by the Commissioner to the Joint Commissioner to carry out provisional attachment.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the provisional attachment order dated 19.06.2020 and directed the respondents to withdraw the provisional attachment of bank account of the petitioner.
Since the impugned attachment of bank account has been found to be without jurisdiction, availability of alternative remedy in the form of filing objection under rule 159(5) of the MGST Rules would be no bar to the petitioner from seeking relief under writ jurisdiction.
Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Provisional Attachment of Bank Account –-- The petitioner sought quashing of provisional attachment order dated 19.06.2020 attaching the bank account. The petitioner rented out commercial premises on leave and license basis receiving license fees from the licensees. He because of Covid-19 pandemic, had not received any license fee from March, 2020 and accordingly no GST was deposited from March, 2020. Resultantly, petitioner submitted GST return for June, 2020 declaring NIL tax. On or about the 3rd week of June, 2020, he came to know that his bank account was provisionally attached by respondent. Since petitioner was not served with a copy of the provisional attachment order, a copy of the same was sought for from the Bank. The provisional attachment order mentioned that proceedings have been launched against the petitioner under section 67, but the petitioner submitted that no notice of proceedings under section 67 has been served upon the petitioner; besides, no such proceedings were pending. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy provided under rule 159 (5), which the petitioner has availed. The petitioner submitted that even if the representation dated 01.07.2020 is construed to be an application under rule 159 (5), but no such hearing was granted to the petitioner. The respondent carried out proceedings in respect of other firms with which petitioner are nowhere connected. The business entities belonging to the petitioner's wife or son are concerned, it is contended that those are distinct business entities having separate legal identity. The court observed that there was no proceeding against petitioner firm therefore, the invocation of power under section 83 against the petitioner would not be justified. The record does not disclose any authorization by the Commissioner to the Joint Commissioner to carry out provisional attachment.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the provisional attachment order dated 19.06.2020 and directed the respondents to withdraw the provisional attachment of bank account of the petitioner.