Greenfinch Team Management P. Ltd VS Union Of India

The summary outlines a legal proceeding involving a petitioner challenging the provisional attachment of their bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The proceeding involves arguments presented by three counsels: Mr. Vineeth Chadda representing the petitioner, Mr. G. Praveen Kumar as the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1, and Ms. Sapna Reddy representing Mr. B. Narsimha Sarma, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

On December 9, 2022, an order was passed acknowledging the challenge to the provisional attachment orders dated December 2, 2019, and December 8, 2021. The petitioner’s counsel argues that due to the lapse of time, both provisional attachment orders are no longer valid. Mr. Sarma, representing respondents No. 2 and 3, requests time to either obtain instructions or file an affidavit.

The matter is adjourned until December 22, 2022, with priority given for listing on the court’s schedule.

The summary of the court proceedings is as follows:

The hearing involved Mr. Vineeth Chadda, representing the petitioner, Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1, and Ms. Sapna Reddy, representing Mr. B. Narsimha Sarma, who acted as counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3.

On 09.12.2022, an order was passed by the court regarding the challenge posed by the petitioner against the provisional attachment of their bank account. The provisional attachment had occurred twice, once on 02.12.2019 and again on 08.12.2021, under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner’s counsel argued that due to the passage of time, both provisional attachment orders were no longer valid. Mr. Sarma, representing respondents No. 2 and 3, requested time either to obtain instructions or to file an affidavit. The case was listed for further consideration on 22.12.2022.

During the proceedings, counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 stated, based on written instructions, that investigations were ongoing against the petitioner under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was indicated that the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account was due to these ongoing investigations. Concerns were raised about the possibility of the petitioner withdrawing funds from the attached bank account if the attachment was lifted, potentially prejudicing the interests of the respondents. In response, it was proposed that the respondents would file an affidavit regarding this matter.

However, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the Additional Director General in the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, had initially provisionally attached the petitioner’s bank account with ICICI Bank on 02.12.2019. Subsequently, a fresh order was issued by the Principal Additional Director General on 08.12.2021, provisionally attaching the petitioner’s bank account with Corporation Bank.

The summary details a legal proceeding where Mr. Vineeth Chadda represents the petitioner, Mr. G.Praveen Kumar represents respondent No.1, and Ms. Sapna Reddy represents respondents No.2 and 3.

Initially, the petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of their bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), dated December 2, 2019, and December 8, 2021. Mr. Chadda argued that due to the passage of time, both attachment orders are no longer valid. Mr. Sarma, representing respondents No.2 and 3, requested time to obtain instructions or file an affidavit.

Respondents No.2 and 3 stated that investigations under Section 67 of the CGST Act were ongoing against the petitioner, justifying the provisional attachment to prevent the withdrawal of funds that might prejudice their interests. They proposed to file an affidavit in this regard.

Mr. Chadda contended that the provisional attachment, first by the Additional Director General in the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit on December 2, 2019, and later by the Principal Additional Director General on December 8, 2021, cannot extend beyond one year as per Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. He supported this argument with a compilation of judgments from different High Courts.

Reviewing the evidence, it was found that on December 2, 2019, the Additional Director General wrote to the Regional Officer of ICICI Bank, Hyderabad, informing about the petitioner’s registration under the CGST Act, ongoing proceedings, and their ICICI Bank account details. Acting under Section 83 of the CGST Act, the Additional Director General provisionally attached the bank account to safeguard revenue interests.

The summary outlines the legal arguments and procedural steps taken by both parties, setting the stage for a resolution on the validity of the provisional attachment orders under the CGST Act.

The case revolves around the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner challenges the validity of two provisional attachment orders dated 02.12.2019 and 08.12.2021, arguing that they are no longer valid due to the lapse of time.

During the proceedings, Mr. Vineeth Chadda, representing the petitioner, contends that the provisional attachment orders are no longer valid. Meanwhile, Mr. G.Praveen Kumar, Deputy Solicitor General of India, representing respondent No.1, and Ms. Sapna Reddy, representing respondents No.2 and 3, argue in favor of the provisional attachment, citing ongoing investigations against the petitioner under Section 67 of the CGST Act. They express concerns that lifting the attachment could allow the petitioner to withdraw funds, prejudicing the interests of the respondents.

The petitioner’s counsel points out that the provisional attachment was first done by the Additional Director General in the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Hyderabad Zonal Unit, on 02.12.2019, concerning an ICICI bank account. Subsequently, on 08.12.2021, another provisional attachment was made by the Principal Additional Director General concerning an account with Corporation Bank.

Reference is made to subsection (2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act, which stipulates that provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year. The petitioner’s counsel submits a compilation of judgments from various High Courts supporting this statutory mandate.

It is noted that the provisional attachment orders were made to protect revenue during ongoing proceedings under various sections of the CGST Act. Section 83 of the CGST Act allows for provisional attachment to safeguard government revenue during proceedings related to taxation matters.

In conclusion, the court has to decide on the validity of the provisional attachment orders in light of the statutory provisions and arguments presented by both parties. The petitioner seeks relief from the attachment, arguing that it has exceeded the statutory limit, while the respondents emphasize the need to protect government revenue during ongoing investigations.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:                         

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: