Darshan Comtrade Pvt Ltd Order VS Principal Chief Commissioner Of GST & Central Excise

The petitioner is challenging an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Goods and Service Tax, dated 06.09.2019, which was passed in Form GST DRC-22. This order attached the petitioner’s current account at ICICI Bank, Pursawawalkam, Chennai, bearing Account No.602505060430. The crux of the petitioner’s argument lies in Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which deals with provisional attachment to safeguard the interests of revenue in specific situations.

The petitioner contests the validity of the attachment, likely arguing that it was not warranted under the provisions of Section 83 or that proper procedures were not followed in its execution. The contention may also involve challenging the Assistant Commissioner’s interpretation or application of the law in this instance.

Provisional attachment under Section 83 is a mechanism employed by tax authorities to prevent revenue loss in cases where there’s a genuine apprehension of non-compliance or tax evasion. However, it must be exercised within the bounds of the law, ensuring procedural fairness and compliance with due process.

The petitioner’s plea could encompass various aspects, such as challenging the grounds for attachment, arguing against the sufficiency of evidence provided by the tax authority, or contesting any procedural irregularities in the attachment process.

The case likely involves a detailed examination of the facts, legal provisions, and procedural aspects to determine the validity of the attachment and the petitioner’s rights therein. The court or adjudicating authority will need to assess whether the attachment was justified and lawful under the provisions of the GST Act and whether any relief or remedy should be granted to the petitioner.

The petitioner in this case is contesting an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, dated 06.09.2019, which was executed in the form of GST DRC-22. This order entailed the attachment of the petitioner’s current account held at ICICI Bank in Pursawawalkam, Chennai, under Account No. 602505060430.

The legal basis for this attachment is cited under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which pertains to provisional attachment aimed at safeguarding the interests of revenue in specific scenarios. This section empowers tax authorities to provisionally attach assets to prevent revenue loss under certain circumstances.

The petitioner presumably challenges the validity and justification of this provisional attachment, likely arguing that it is unwarranted or disproportionate given the circumstances of their tax liability or other relevant factors.

In essence, the petitioner seeks relief from the attachment imposed on their bank account by contesting the legality and necessity of the Assistant Commissioner’s order under Section 83 of the CGST Act.

The petitioner challenges an order issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax on September 6, 2019, which attached the petitioner’s current account at ICICI Bank, Pursawalkam, Chennai, with Account No. 602505060430. This order was made in Form GST DRC-22.

The petitioner’s argument hinges on Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which addresses provisional attachment aimed at safeguarding the revenue’s interests in specific cases. According to Section 83(2), such attachments expire after one year from the date of the attachment order. Consequently, the attachment in question ceased to be effective as of September 15, 2020, making the petitioner’s writ petition moot.

In light of this legal provision, there are no longer any restrictions on the operation of the petitioner’s bank account, and they are free to resume their financial activities. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with this observation, and no costs are imposed. Any connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:                         

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: