The Calcutta High Court held that authorities undertaking provisional attachment beyond 1 year without informing the bank is contrary to the law.
In the writ petition filed by Mr Arijit Chakrabarti, Mr Nilotpal Chowdhury, Mr Prabir Bera against the Union of India. These petitions were consolidated because they raised the same issues in question.
The petitioner, in this case, is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013. This company carries on its business transactions through the current account registered with M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank. The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (ADGGI) passed an Order to provisionally attach the current account of the petitioner maintained in the M/s. Lakshmi Vilas Bank under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, through FORM GST DRC – 22.
As a consequence, the current account was frozen and the petitioner was informed by the bank. After more than a year, the said company by way of a letter made a representation before the Directorate General of Goods & Services Tax Intelligence (ADGGI), requesting to de-freeze the current account of the company which was earlier provisionally attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The issue raised in this case was whether the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI and Additional Director General, DGGI are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the provisional attachment beyond 1 year without informing the bank is contrary to the law can be undertaken or not?
The single-judge bench of the High Court of Calcutta held that Principal Additional Director General, DGGI and Additional Director General, DGGI are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, authorities undertaking provisional attachment beyond 1 year without informing the bank is contrary to the law.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment
