UFV India Global Education VS The Union Of India

In this case, the petitioner has requested the court to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari with the aim of overturning several specific orders and actions that have adversely affected them. The petitioner is challenging the legality of an order dated July 29, 2020, which provisionally attached their bank account held with respondent No. 3. This provisional attachment was communicated to the petitioner through a letter, also dated July 29, 2020, issued by respondent No. 2, informing them of the impugned action. Subsequently, the petitioner filed objections against this attachment, but these objections were dismissed by respondent No. 2 through an order dated August 6, 2020.

The petitioner is now seeking judicial intervention to quash these orders and the provisional attachment of their bank account. In addition to the writ of certiorari, the petitioner is also requesting the court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus. Through this writ, they seek a directive from the court to compel the respondents to release their bank account, which has been provisionally attached. Essentially, the petitioner is seeking relief from the court to restore access to their bank account by challenging the actions and decisions of the respondents that led to its provisional attachment.

The petitioner has approached the court seeking the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash several orders and actions taken against them. Specifically, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.07.2020, which provisionally attached the petitioner’s bank account held with respondent No. 3. This attachment was communicated to the petitioner through a letter dated 29.07.2020, issued by respondent No. 2. Subsequently, on 06.08.2020, respondent No. 2 rejected the petitioner’s objections against this attachment, an order which the petitioner also seeks to have quashed.

In addition to seeking the quashing of these orders, the petitioner has also requested the court to issue a writ of mandamus. This writ would direct the respondents to release the petitioner’s bank account, which has been provisionally attached, effectively restoring the petitioner’s access to their financial resources.

The petitioner operates academic programs in India on behalf of the University of Fraser Valley, Canada (referred to as “the UFV, Canada”). These academic programs are a significant part of the petitioner’s operations and involve the collaboration between the petitioner and UFV, Canada. The provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account has likely impacted the petitioner’s ability to manage and conduct these academic programs effectively, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial intervention for the release of the account.

The petition underscores the petitioner’s reliance on this bank account for the continuation of their educational activities in partnership with the Canadian university. By seeking the quashing of the orders and the release of the attached bank account, the petitioner aims to remove the legal and financial impediments that have arisen due to the provisional attachment, which they view as unjust and unwarranted. The court’s decision in this matter will determine whether the petitioner’s financial resources will be restored and whether the challenged orders will be set aside.

The petitioner has filed a request for a writ of certiorari to annul three specific orders related to the provisional attachment of its bank account. These include an order dated July 29, 2020, which initiated the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account with the third respondent, a letter from the second respondent on the same date notifying the petitioner of this attachment, and a subsequent order dated August 6, 2020, from the second respondent, which rejected the petitioner’s objections to the attachment. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to release the bank account that has been provisionally attached.

The petitioner is involved in conducting academic programs in India on behalf of the University of Fraser Valley, Canada (UFV, Canada). These programs are offered in collaboration with Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College and Panjab University, with degrees awarded by UFV, Canada, being recognized by Panjab University. On July 27, 2020, officials from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), Chandigarh Zonal Unit, visited the petitioner’s premises. During this visit, they recorded statements from the petitioner’s Associate Directors and prepared a panchnama, which documented the petitioner’s full cooperation, including providing access to all necessary documents.

On July 30, 2020, the DGGSTI notified the petitioner via email that its bank account had been provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. In response, the petitioner filed an objection on the same day under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, contesting the attachment and requesting the release of the bank account to meet urgent payment obligations. The petitioner was granted a personal hearing on the matter.

However, on August 6, 2020, the second respondent issued an order partially releasing the bank account to allow payments under the Amnesty Scheme but denied the petitioner’s request to fully lift the provisional attachment. The order emphasized that the petitioner had no assets other than the bank account that could be used to secure the government’s revenue interests. As a result, the provisional attachment of the bank account was maintained, leading to the current petition for judicial intervention.

The petitioner has sought judicial relief in the form of a writ of certiorari to annul several actions taken by the respondents that adversely affected their bank account. Specifically, the petitioner is challenging three actions: (1) a provisional attachment order dated July 29, 2020, regarding their bank account with respondent No. 3, (2) a letter from July 29, 2020, issued by respondent No. 2, which notified the petitioner of the attachment, and (3) an order from August 6, 2020, by respondent No. 2 that rejected the petitioner’s objections to the provisional attachment.

In addition to seeking the quashing of these orders, the petitioner is requesting a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to release the bank account that has been provisionally attached.

To provide context, the petitioner is involved in running academic programs in India on behalf of the University of Fraser Valley, Canada (UFV, Canada). These programs are conducted in collaboration with Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College and Panjab University, and the degrees conferred by UFV, Canada are recognized by Panjab University.

On July 27, 2020, officials from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), Chandigarh Zonal Unit, visited the petitioner’s premises, interviewed the Associate Director(s), and prepared a panchnama, documenting that the petitioner cooperated and provided access to all necessary documents.

However, on July 30, 2020, the DGGSTI sent an email to the petitioner informing them that their bank account had been provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act). The petitioner responded by filing an objection on the same day under Rule 159 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the Rules), arguing that the provisional attachment should be lifted due to the need to make urgent payments.

A personal hearing was granted, and on August 6, 2020, respondent No. 2 issued an order that partially released the bank account for payments under the Amnesty Scheme but upheld the provisional attachment. The order justified this decision by stating that the petitioner did not possess other property through which government revenue could be safeguarded.

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the provisional attachment was executed under Section 83 of the Act in relation to ongoing proceedings under Section 67 of the Act.

The petitioner has requested judicial review through a writ of certiorari to annul three specific actions: the order dated July 29, 2020, which provisionally attached the petitioner’s bank account held with respondent No. 3; a letter dated July 29, 2020, issued by respondent No. 2 notifying the petitioner about this provisional attachment; and an order dated August 6, 2020, from respondent No. 2 that dismissed the petitioner’s objections to the attachment. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to release the bank account from provisional attachment.

The petitioner operates academic programs in India in partnership with the University of Fraser Valley, Canada (UFV, Canada), collaborating with Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College and Panjab University. Degrees awarded by UFV, Canada are recognized by Panjab University. On July 27, 2020, officials from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Chandigarh Zonal Unit (DGGSTI), visited the petitioner’s premises, recorded statements from its Associate Directors, and prepared a panchnama documenting the cooperation of the petitioner’s authorized representatives and their compliance in providing access to necessary documents.

Subsequently, on July 30, 2020, DGGSTI informed the petitioner via email that their bank account had been provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act). An objection was filed on the same day under Rule 159 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (the Rules), requesting the release of the attachment to facilitate urgent payments. The petitioner was given a chance for a personal hearing. On August 6, 2020, respondent No. 2 issued an order partially releasing the bank account for payments under the Amnesty Scheme but denied the full release of the provisional attachment, arguing that the petitioner had no other property to safeguard government revenue.

The petitioner’s counsel argues that the provisional attachment was implemented based on proceedings under Section 67 of the Act, which have since concluded. With no proceedings under Sections 63 or 74 initiated, the petitioner contends that the attachment order under Section 83 has become redundant and thus should be lifted.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking judicial intervention through two primary writs. The first writ is in the nature of certiorari, aimed at quashing three specific actions: an order dated July 29, 2020, that provisionally attached the petitioner’s bank account; a letter from the same date notifying the petitioner of this attachment; and a subsequent order dated August 6, 2020, that dismissed the petitioner’s objections to the attachment. The second writ sought is in the nature of mandamus, which seeks a court order directing the respondents to lift the provisional attachment on the petitioner’s bank account.

The petitioner operates academic programs in India in collaboration with the University of Fraser Valley (UFV), Canada, Goswami Ganesh Dutta Sanatan Dharma College, and Panjab University. Degrees awarded by UFV are recognized by Panjab University. On July 27, 2020, officials from the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGSTI), Chandigarh Zonal Unit, visited the petitioner’s premises. They recorded statements from the petitioner’s Associate Directors and prepared a panchnama, noting the petitioner’s cooperation and provision of necessary documents.

However, on July 30, 2020, the DGGSTI informed the petitioner via email that their bank account had been provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner filed an objection on the same day under Rule 159 (5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, arguing for the release of the account due to urgent financial needs. Although the petitioner was given a chance for a personal hearing, the respondent’s order on August 6, 2020, only partially released the account to facilitate payments under an Amnesty Scheme and refused to fully lift the attachment, citing the lack of other assets that could secure government revenue.

The petitioner’s counsel contends that the provisional attachment under Section 83 is based on proceedings initiated under Section 67, which have since concluded, with no further proceedings under Section 63 or 74 initiated. Consequently, the attachment should be deemed unnecessary. In contrast, the respondents argue that the attachment under Section 83 is valid as it is a precursor to potential proceedings under Sections 63 or 74.

To resolve the matter, the court is considering these arguments and reviewing the relevant provisions of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which are central to the dispute.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law