Perfect Boring (P.) Ltd. Vs Union of India

The Summary Rule begins with Mr. Ankit Shah, a learned senior standing counsel, waiving service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. It highlights the narrow scope of the controversy and the agreement of the learned advocates for both parties to proceed with the hearing.

The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the order of provisional attachment dated 15.5.2018 passed by respondent No.2 under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), which attached the petitioner’s bank account with Bank of India, Ahmedabad Main, Bhadra, along with eight other bank accounts listed in Annexure-C.

Mr. Zubin Bharda, representing the petitioner, argues that the proceedings under section 67 of the CGST Act were initiated due to outstanding excise dues of Rs.1,05,27,185, despite the petitioner continuing to deposit GST and CGST dues. Despite the attachment of bank accounts, the petitioner continued to deposit dues until September 2018, paying off a significant portion of the outstanding dues amounting to Rs.90,30,711.

1.Mr. Ankit Shah, a learned senior standing counsel, on behalf of the respondents, waives the service of notice of the rule.

2.With consent from the advocates for both parties, the case was taken up for hearing due to the narrow scope of the controversy.

3.The petitioner challenges the order of provisional attachment dated 15.5.2018, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This order, issued by respondent No. 2 under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), directed the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account (No. 200020110000901) held at the Bank of India, Ahmedabad Main, Bhadra, along with eight other bank accounts.

4.Mr. Zubin Bharda, representing the petitioner, argues that while proceedings under section 67 of the CGST Act were initiated due to outstanding excise dues of Rs. 1,05,27,185/-, the petitioner continued to deposit GST and CGST dues. Despite the attachment of bank accounts, the petitioner made payments totaling Rs. 90,62,495/- towards these dues up to September 2018, and Rs. 18,24,000/- for October. Additionally, Rs. 49,51,000/- of the outstanding excise dues has been cleared from April 2018 onwards. The petitioner requests permission to pay the central excise dues in installments due to various hardships faced, including the inability to deposit employees’ provident fund and impending classification of accounts as Non Performing Assets by the Bank of India. The petitioner asserts its willingness to pay the dues and seeks the release of the attachment on bank accounts to facilitate its business operations.

5.The summary rule pertains to a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the provisional attachment of bank accounts under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Mr. Ankit Shah, learned senior standing counsel, waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

6.The controversy revolves around the attachment order dated 15.5.2018, affecting multiple bank accounts of the petitioner. The petitioner contests this, asserting continued payment of GST, CGST, and excise dues, albeit facing difficulties due to the attachment. They seek permission to pay outstanding excise dues in installments.

7.Mr. Zubin Bharda, representing the petitioner, highlights their ongoing efforts to clear dues and requests the release of bank account attachments. Conversely, Mr. Ankit Shah, representing the respondents, argues for the attachment to safeguard government revenue, citing the petitioner’s past defaults.

8.The respondents justify their actions under section 83 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the need to protect government revenue. They note the petitioner’s commitment to pay a set amount monthly, which they allegedly failed to fulfill, justifying the continued attachment.

9.Section 83 of the CGST Act allows provisional attachment to safeguard government revenue during proceedings. The court must weigh the need for revenue protection against the petitioner’s hardships due to attachment.In conclusion, the court must decide whether the attachment of bank accounts is justified under section 83, considering the petitioner’s efforts to clear dues and the need to protect government revenue.

10.The summary rule pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of provisional attachment issued under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned senior standing counsel, waives service of notice of the rule on behalf of the respondents. The controversy in the petition revolves around the attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts by the respondent No.2, affecting the petitioner’s ability to conduct business smoothly.The petitioner contends that despite the attachment, they have continued to deposit GST and CGST dues, and have made efforts to clear outstanding excise dues, even requesting permission to pay in installments. However, the respondent argues that the attachment is necessary to safeguard government revenue, citing the petitioner’s history of default and failure to fulfill commitments to pay outstanding dues.

Section 83 of the CGST Act allows provisional attachment of property, including bank accounts, during proceedings under section 67 to protect government revenue. The court acknowledges the need to balance the interests of both parties and suggests that if the petitioner provides security for outstanding dues, both their interests and government revenue could be protected without undue hardship.The court is inclined to grant relief to the petitioner, considering the adverse impact of the attachment on their business. However, it also acknowledges the need to ensure compliance with tax obligations. Therefore, it may consider releasing the attachment subject to the petitioner providing security for the outstanding dues.Overall, the rule emphasizes the need to protect government revenue while also addressing the hardships faced by the petitioner, suggesting a possible solution that balances both interests.

The rule, waived service of notice by Mr. Ankit Shah, learned senior standing counsel on behalf of the respondents, was brought forth due to a dispute over a provisional attachment order dated 15.5.2018 under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order targeted the bank account of the petitioner and several others. Mr. Zubin Bharda, advocate for the petitioner, argued that despite outstanding dues, the petitioner diligently paid GST and CGST, even clearing a substantial portion of the excise dues. He pleaded for installment payments to clear the remaining dues, highlighting the adverse impact of the attachment on business operations.Conversely, Mr. Ankit Shah, representing the respondents, justified the attachment as necessary to safeguard government revenue, citing the petitioner’s history of default and unfulfilled commitments.Section 83 of the CGST Act allows provisional attachment to safeguard government revenue during proceedings under section 67. The court acknowledged the need to balance revenue protection with minimizing undue hardship to the petitioner. Consequently, it permitted the petitioner to clear Rs. 55,00,000/- of outstanding excise dues in equal monthly installments over eight months, contingent on furnishing a bank guarantee for the same amount within one month.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: