The Madras High Court released bank account of defaulter attached under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST) on lapse of one year from date of attachment. The petitioner in the writ petition is Darshan Comtrade Pvt Ltd Represented by its Managing Director Akshardham.
The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the order of 3rd respondent (Assistant Commissioner Office of Principal Chief Commissioner of GST and Central Excise) and to quash the same consequently direct the respondents 1 -5 release the petitioners bank account with 5th respondent’s bank (ICICI Bank Ltd. Represented by its Branch Manager, Pursawalkam).
Section 83 of theCentral Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 reads as Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases:
(1) Where, after the initiation of any proceeding under Chapter XII, Chapter XIV or Chapter XV, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing, attach provisionally, any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person or any person specified in sub-section (1A) of section 122, in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).
The prayer of the petitioner is as against an order of the third respondent, which is passed in Form GST DRC-22 attaching the current account of the petitioner in ICICI Bank, Pursawawalkam. Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 deals with provisional attachment to protect the interests of the revenue in certain cases.
The attachment as per Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 shall cease to have effect after a period of one year from date of order of attachment. Thus, pending writ petition, the impugned order has ceased to have effect, as on 15.09.2020. With this, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
A Bench consisting of Dr Justice Anita Sumanth observed that “In light of the aforesaid, there is no further embargo on the operation of the bank account and on the petitioner resuming operations in that regard. This writ petition stands disposed with the above observationa.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
