GST: Delhi HC quashes Notice for Provisional Attachment without following Statutory Requirements [Read Order]

GST - Delhi HC - Notice - Provisional Attachment - Statutory Requirements - taxscan

The division bench of the High Court of New Delhi has quashed the notice for provisional attachment without following statutory requirements.

The petitioner, Zuric Traders field Writ petition against the communication addressed by the revenue to the IndusInd Bank to keep the account blocked and maintain the status-quo till credentials of M/s. Zuric Traders are established and verified as the petitioner is wrongfully availed IGST credit.

The counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned communication was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner obtained knowledge of the same, only when the fact that the petitioner’s bank account had been blocked was communicated to him. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a plain reading of the impugned communication would show that there is no reference to Section 83 of the 2017 Act as argued by the respondent

The division bench has observed that since the communication was never served and the information received did not disclose that the action had been taken under Section 83 of the 2017 Act, no objections could be filed and consequently, the principles of natural justice were, infracted. Hence, the action is violative not only of the provisions of Section 83 of the 2017 Act but also Rule 159(5) of the 2017 Rules.

Further, the High Court observed that even if one were to assume that the action was taken under Section 83 of the 2017 Act, there must be any pendency of proceedings against the petitioner under any one of the following Sections: Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of the 2017 Act, but no proceedings were pending under any of the said provisions against the petitioner.

The Coram of Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Ms. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has quashed the communication and directed the revenue to communicate the IndusInd Bank to unblock the bank account.  

Adv. Dr. Avinash Poddar and Mr. Ravi Prakash appeared on behalf of the petitioner and respondent respectively.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader