Piyush Shamjibhai Vasoya VS Union Of India

In this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks several reliefs from the court. The main relief requested is the issuance of a writ of certiorari or another appropriate writ to quash and set aside the attachment order issued by Respondent No. 2. The petitioner specifically requests that the court direct the respondents to unfreeze or detach the petitioner’s Current Bank Account No. 3785553187 with the Central Bank of India, Rajkot Main Branch, which has been provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Additionally, the petitioner requests an interim relief pending the admission and final hearing of the petition. The interim relief sought is an order directing the respondents to unfreeze or detach the bank account mentioned above, subject to any terms and conditions the Hon’ble Court may deem fit.

Lastly, the petitioner requests that the court dispense with the requirement to file the requisite court fees or documents typically needed for such applications.

The petitioner, representing “M/s. Sky Corporation,” a proprietary firm operating as a commission agent at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee in Gondal, brought a legal case during the global COVID-19 pandemic. The firm holds a valid license issued under Section 27 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (GAPMC). The petitioner commits to comply with the court’s directives, including paying and affixing costs as required. The case revolves around a specific legal dispute, with the petitioner seeking relief or orders that the court deems just and appropriate in the interest of justice. The petitioner also requests that costs be awarded in the case.

This case revolves around a legal dispute where the petitioner, a proprietor of a firm named “M/s. Sky Corporation,” seeks relief from an order passed by a government authority. The firm operates as a commission agent at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee in Gondal and holds a valid license under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963.

The controversy stems from an action taken by the respondent, who issued a provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. This action seems to be linked to a broader investigation involving other individuals associated with the petitioner’s business. However, the court is careful not to delve into the specifics of these connections at this stage.

The petitioner has approached the court seeking relief from this attachment, arguing that the action was unjust and that it has caused significant hardship to their business. They also request the court to pass any further orders deemed necessary in the interest of justice and to award costs for the litigation. The court’s decision in this matter will likely hinge on the legality and justification of the provisional attachment and its impact on the petitioner’s business operations.

This case involves a legal dispute arising from actions taken during the global COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner, who operates under the name “M/s. Sky Corporation” as a commission agent at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee in Gondal, filed a writ petition. The petition involves a narrow legal issue regarding the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account by the second respondent under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

The petitioner’s firm holds a valid license under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. The controversy arose when the respondent exercised their powers to provisionally attach the petitioner’s bank account, allegedly due to actions taken against other individuals potentially connected to the petitioner’s business activities.

The central question before the court is whether the respondent was justified in invoking Section 83 of the CGST Act to order the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account. The court is asked to determine if this action was legally permissible under the circumstances presented. The petitioner has requested the court to consider their argument, award costs, and provide any further orders deemed appropriate in the interest of justice.

**Summary:**

The case involves a legal dispute where the petitioner, a proprietor of a firm named “M/s. Sky Corporation,” has brought forth a matter to the Hon’ble Court. The firm, which acts as a commission agent at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee in Gondal, holds a valid license under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963.

The crux of the dispute revolves around the respondent’s decision to provisionally attach the petitioner’s bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. This action was likely a result of investigations related to the petitioner’s business dealings with other individuals, who may have been involved in actions that triggered the respondent’s intervention.

The key legal issue under consideration is whether the respondent was justified in using Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, to pass an order of provisional attachment of the bank account. The court heard arguments from both sides, with the petitioner represented by Mr. Manan Paneri and the respondents by Mr. Devang Vyas, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India.

The court is expected to make a decision on the matter, and the petitioner has undertaken to comply with any further directions from the court, including the payment of costs if awarded. The court also has the discretion to pass any other orders it deems fit in the interest of justice.

The case revolves around a legal dispute brought before the court by the petitioner, who is the proprietor of “M/s. Sky Corporation,” a firm operating as a commission agent at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) in Gondal, Gujarat. The firm holds a valid license under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (GAPMC). The controversy centers on an order passed by the respondent no.2, a government authority, to provisionally attach the bank account of the petitioner under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.

Section 83 of the CGST Act allows the Commissioner to provisionally attach property, including bank accounts, during the pendency of certain proceedings if it is deemed necessary to protect the interest of government revenue. The petitioner’s bank account was attached as a result of actions taken against other individuals allegedly connected to the petitioner’s business activities. The court is tasked with determining whether the respondent had the authority to invoke Section 83 for the purpose of passing the provisional attachment order.

The court heard arguments from both sides, with Mr. Manan Paneri representing the petitioner and Mr. Devang Vyas, the Additional Solicitor General of India, representing the respondents. The petitioner undertakes to comply with any further orders that the court may issue, including the payment and affixing of any required fees. The court is also requested to consider any other orders it deems necessary in the interest of justice and to award costs.

The matter presents a narrow legal issue regarding the appropriateness of the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account under the CGST Act. The court’s decision will hinge on the interpretation of the law and the facts surrounding the case, specifically whether the actions taken by the respondent were justified under Section 83.

The case revolves around a dispute concerning the provisional attachment of a bank account under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner, the proprietor of a firm called “M/s. Sky Corporation,” operates as a commission agent at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) in Gondal and holds a valid license under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963.

The controversy arose when the respondent, a government authority, invoked Section 83 of the CGST Act to provisionally attach the petitioner’s bank account. The petitioner contested this action, arguing that it was unjustified since no proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74 of the CGST Act were pending against them. These sections of the CGST Act pertain to various proceedings related to tax assessments, audits, and investigations.

The petitioner’s legal counsel argued that in the absence of any ongoing proceedings under the relevant sections of the CGST Act, the respondent lacked the authority to invoke Section 83 for provisional attachment. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent’s actions were lawful.

Upon reviewing the case, the court noted that the language of Section 83 is clear and unambiguous. It states that provisional attachment can only be invoked during the pendency of proceedings under specific sections of the Act. Since no such proceedings were pending against the petitioner, the court found that the respondent had overstepped its authority by invoking Section 83.

The court also acknowledged that while there may have been some ongoing inquiry or investigation related to the petitioner’s business transactions with other individuals, this alone did not justify the invocation of Section 83. The court concluded that the provisional attachment order issued by the respondent was not legally tenable, as it did not meet the necessary legal requirements.

In summary, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the provisional attachment of the bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act was not justified in the absence of pending proceedings under the relevant sections of the Act.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law