Panaque Tradecom Pvt Ltd VS Union of India

In a series of captioned petitions, a common set of facts and issues emerge, prompting the court to address them collectively in this shared order.

1. The court has heard arguments from various parties involved, including Mr. Dhaval Shah representing the petitioners, as well as Mr. Priyank Lodha and Mr. Nikunt Raval representing the respondents in their respective petitions.

2. The primary grievance voiced by the petitioners concerns the provisional attachment of their bank accounts, an action taken by authorities exercising their powers.

   In a series of petitions, a common issue regarding the provisional attachment of bank accounts under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is addressed. The petitions were collectively considered due to their shared facts and issues.

   Representatives from both petitioner and respondent sides presented their arguments before the court. The petitioners contested the provisional attachment of their bank accounts by tax authorities and sought to overturn the orders issued by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. They requested the cancellation of these orders and the release of their bank accounts, which were held with IDBI Bank Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Similar prayers were made in other petitions.

   It was noted that nine bank accounts belonging to the petitioners had been provisionally attached. During the hearing, the respondent’s advocate acknowledged that the one-year period stipulated in section 83 of the CGST Act had elapsed for seven of the accounts, thus automatically ending their provisional attachment. However, fresh attachment orders were mentioned for the remaining two accounts.

   The petitioners’ advocate presented email communication from the competent authority of the Preventive Section of CGST, Gandhinagar, confirming the cessation of provisional attachment for the seven bank accounts due to the expiration of the one-year period.

   Overall, the court considered the arguments presented and acknowledged the automatic cessation of provisional attachment for seven bank accounts due to the passage of time. The remaining accounts were subject to fresh attachment orders.

   The court considered multiple petitions that shared a common concern regarding the provisional attachment of bank accounts by authorities under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Legal representatives for both petitioners and respondents were heard during the proceedings.

   The petitioners’ main grievance was the provisional attachment of their bank accounts by the authorities. One specific petition, taken as a representative case, sought to overturn the orders of attachment passed by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise, Ahmedabad, and requested the release of the frozen bank accounts held with IDBI Bank Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Similar prayers were made in three other petitions.

   During the hearing, it was revealed that nine bank accounts belonging to the petitioners had been provisionally attached. However, the respondent’s advocate conceded that the one-year time period specified in section 83 of the CGST Act had elapsed for seven of the accounts, thereby automatically terminating their provisional attachment. Consequently, the grievances related to those seven accounts were considered resolved. Additionally, it was mentioned that fresh attachment orders had been issued for the remaining two bank accounts.

   To support their case, the petitioners’ advocate presented an email dated 19.10.2022 from the competent authority of the Preventive Section of CGST, Gandhinagar, confirming that the provisional attachment on seven bank accounts had ceased to have effect due to the expiration of the one-year period. This communication was admitted as evidence during the proceedings.

   In a series of petitions, a common concern emerges regarding the provisional attachment of bank accounts by authorities under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. These petitions were collectively addressed due to their shared facts and issues.

   Advocates representing both petitioners and respondents presented their arguments. The petitioners challenge the orders of provisional attachment, specifically those issued by the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise in March and October of a certain year, targeting bank accounts held with IDBI Bank Ltd. and Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

   The prayer in one of the petitions, representative of the others, seeks to annul the aforementioned orders and secure the release of the attached bank accounts. Despite petitions for defreezing being rejected, the petitioners persist in contesting the decisions.

   During the hearing, it was acknowledged by the respondent’s advocate that the one-year period stipulated in Section 83 of the CGST Act had elapsed for seven out of nine attached bank accounts. Consequently, the provisional attachment of these seven accounts was deemed to have automatically lapsed. However, fresh attachment orders were noted for the remaining two accounts.

   The petitioners’ advocate provided email correspondence dated October 19, 2022, from the competent authority of the Preventive Section of CGST, Gandhinagar, confirming the cessation of provisional attachment for the seven bank accounts after the one-year period. This communication was admitted as evidence.

   Further details regarding the issuance date of the DRC-22 form and its relevance to the matter were mentioned, establishing a timeline for the proceedings.

For Reference Visit:                         

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: