Prime Gold International Ltd VS The Additional Director General

In the case of W.P.No.13281 of 2019, the petitioner has contested the attachment of their bank account, which was carried out by the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence. This action was executed in accordance with Form GST DRC-22, as prescribed under Rule 159(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. The petitioner has brought this matter to the court, challenging the legality and propriety of the attachment, questioning whether the due process outlined in the GST Rules was followed in this instance. The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the GST Rules, particularly in relation to the authority and procedures governing the attachment of assets by the tax authorities.

In this case, the petitioner has contested the attachment of their bank account by the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence. The attachment was formalized using Form GST Doc.22, in accordance with Rule 159(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (GST Rules). The petition was filed under W.P.No.13281 of 2019.

The petitioner’s bank account at the State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch in Bangalore, was attached on the basis that legal proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). This section allows for the determination of tax or any other amounts that may be owed by the petitioner. The attachment was justified by the authorities as a measure to protect the interests of the revenue, utilizing the powers granted under Section 83 of the CGST Act. Section 83 specifically allows for the provisional attachment of property, including bank accounts, to safeguard the collection of potential tax liabilities during the pendency of any proceedings under certain sections of the CGST Act, including Section 67.

The petitioner is challenging this action on legal grounds, arguing that the attachment of their bank account was unwarranted or improperly conducted under the provisions of the law.

The petitioner has challenged the attachment of their bank account by the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, issued in Form GST Doc.22 under Rule 159(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, in the case numbered W.P.No.13281 of 2019. The attachment in question concerns the petitioner’s account held at the State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch, Bangalore. This action was taken on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) to determine any tax liabilities or other amounts due. The respondent invoked the powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act to attach the bank account in order to safeguard the interests of the revenue.

When the case was previously heard, both the petitioner’s counsel and the Senior Panel Counsel for the official respondents were present. During this hearing, the Court noted that the petitioner had already approached the Additional Director General, the first respondent in this case, by submitting a representation on 1st April 2019, in accordance with Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules. The representation sought the lifting of the bank account attachment, a request made by the petitioner prior to the current legal challenge.

In this case, the petitioner has challenged the attachment of their bank account by the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence. The attachment was made in accordance with Form GST DRC-22 under Rule 159(1) of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Rules, 2017. The bank account in question is held at the State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch, Bangalore.

The attachment was initiated because proceedings were launched against the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. These proceedings were meant to determine the tax or any other amount that may be owed by the petitioner. To safeguard the revenue’s interest, the respondent used the powers granted under Section 83 of the CGST Act to attach the petitioner’s bank account.

The matter was brought before the court, where both the petitioner’s counsel and the Senior Panel Counsel for the official respondents were present. The court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the Additional Director General (Respondent 1) with a representation dated April 1, 2019, under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules, requesting the lifting of the bank account attachment.

The court granted the Department time to file a counter-response and also gave the petitioner the liberty to continue pursuing their representation before Respondent 1. The court directed Respondent 1 to consider the petitioner’s representation and issue an order after providing the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.

In the case of W.P.No.13281 of 2019, the petitioner is challenging the attachment of their bank account by the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence. This attachment was made using Form GST Doc.22 under Rule 159(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (GST Rules). The attachment occurred at the State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch in Bangalore, following the initiation of proceedings under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) to determine any tax or other amounts owed by the petitioner.

The respondent attached the petitioner’s bank account to safeguard the interests of the revenue, exercising powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act. When the case was previously heard, both the petitioner’s and the respondent’s counsels were present. During this hearing, the Court observed that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Additional Director General (R1) on April 1, 2019, requesting the lifting of the attachment, in accordance with Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules.

The Court granted time for the Department to file a counter while allowing the petitioner to continue pursuing their representation. The Court directed R1 to pass a decision on the representation after considering the petitioner’s arguments. Subsequently, on May 31, 2019, R1 issued an order rejecting the petitioner’s request to lift the bank account attachment. The impugned order includes a detailed explanation in paragraph 9.4.4, which articulates the reasons for the denial of the petitioner’s request.

In W.P.No.13281 of 2019, the petitioner has contested an action taken by the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, who issued an attachment of the petitioner’s bank account at the State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch, Bangalore. This action was based on Rule 159(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (GST Rules), and was initiated under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The purpose of the attachment was to secure the interests of the revenue while proceedings were underway to determine any tax or other amounts due from the petitioner, as permitted by Section 83 of the CGST Act.

During an earlier hearing, the Court observed that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Additional Director General on April 1, 2019, requesting the removal of the bank account attachment as per Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules. The Court allowed time for the Department to file a counter-affidavit and granted the petitioner the opportunity to pursue the representation. The Additional Director General was instructed to address the representation after considering the petitioner’s arguments.

On May 31, 2019, the Additional Director General issued an order rejecting the petitioner’s request to lift the attachment. In the order, specifically at paragraph 9.4.4, it was noted that the petitioner sought a mandamus from the Court to compel the respondents to commence proceedings against the petitioner under the CGST Act by issuing a show cause notice, thus challenging the attachment of their bank account.

In W.P.No.13281 of 2019, the petitioner has challenged the attachment of their bank account by the Additional Director General of Goods and Service Tax Intelligence, which was executed using Form GST Doc.22 under Rule 159(1) of the Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 (GST Rules). The attachment was applied to the petitioner’s account at the State Bank of India, Electronic City Branch, Bangalore. This action was taken because proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner under Section 67(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) to ascertain any tax liabilities or other dues. To safeguard the revenue interests, the respondent invoked Section 83 of the CGST Act to attach the bank account.

During a previous hearing, the court noted that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Additional Director General (R1) on April 1, 2019, under Rule 159(5) of the GST Rules, requesting the lifting of the bank account attachment. The court granted time for the Department to file a counter and allowed the petitioner to continue pursuing their representation with R1. It was directed that R1 should consider the petitioner’s request and issue a decision after hearing them.

On May 31, 2019, R1 issued an order rejecting the petitioner’s request to lift the bank account attachment. In the order, specifically in paragraph 9.4.4, R1 stated that the petitioner was seeking a court directive (mandamus) to compel the respondents to initiate proceedings under the CGST Act by issuing a show cause notice. The respondents, through a counter filed by R1 and R2, explained that they required the petitioner’s presence for the verification of electronic gadgets. They indicated that they could not proceed with the investigation or issue a show cause notice until this verification was completed.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case law