The prayer of the petitioner for revoking the orders of provisional attachment ought to be considered de novo by the Commissioner.
Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts -- The petitioner engaged in the business of production of chemicals and allied products. The petitioner challenged the letters dated February 10, 2021 and March 15, 2021. Vide these letters, it was alleged that the petitioner had misclassified their products on which they were required to pay differential duty of Rs. 18,30,87,423/-. During the pendency of the petition, two separate orders dated April 27, 2021 were passed provisionally attaching the property of the petitioner under section 83 of the Act. The petitioner objected to the orders and sought for revocation thereof. After hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner, the Commissioner has passed an order dated May 21, 2021 whereby the objection raised to the orders of provisional attachment has been overruled and the prayer for revoking the said orders rejected. The court observed that the Commissioner has written a detailed order spread over nine pages as to why the provisional attachment ought to continue, but it suffers from the infirmity of lack of application of mind as well as breach of principles of natural justice. The court further observed that the provisional order dated May 21, 2021 is unsustainable.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated May 21, 2021 and directed the Commissioner to de novo consider the objection of the petitioner dated May 7 & 17, 2021 in accordance with law.
The prayer of the petitioner for revoking the orders of provisional attachment ought to be considered de novo by the Commissioner.
Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts -- The petitioner engaged in the business of production of chemicals and allied products. The petitioner challenged the letters dated February 10, 2021 and March 15, 2021. Vide these letters, it was alleged that the petitioner had misclassified their products on which they were required to pay differential duty of Rs. 18,30,87,423/-. During the pendency of the petition, two separate orders dated April 27, 2021 were passed provisionally attaching the property of the petitioner under section 83 of the Act. The petitioner objected to the orders and sought for revocation thereof. After hearing the authorized representative of the petitioner, the Commissioner has passed an order dated May 21, 2021 whereby the objection raised to the orders of provisional attachment has been overruled and the prayer for revoking the said orders rejected. The court observed that the Commissioner has written a detailed order spread over nine pages as to why the provisional attachment ought to continue, but it suffers from the infirmity of lack of application of mind as well as breach of principles of natural justice. The court further observed that the provisional order dated May 21, 2021 is unsustainable.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned order dated May 21, 2021 and directed the Commissioner to de novo consider the objection of the petitioner dated May 7 & 17, 2021 in accordance with law.