Company’s GST Bank Attachment Challenge Fails for Not Stating Date or Producing Notice Proof: Calcutta HC [Read Order]
Calcutta High Court dismissed a GST writ as the company failed to disclose the bank attachment date or provide proof of notice or bank communication
In a recent ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition after finding that the company had failed to disclose the date of its bank account attachment under GST and had not provided proof of service of notice or any written communication from the bank.
GSPS Developers Private Limited, the petitioner, challenged the attachment of its bank account by the State Tax Department. An adjudication order under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 was passed for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021.
Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal on 1 September 2025, admittedly beyond the prescribed time, along with an application for condonation of delay.
Planning smarter for FY 2025–26? Don’t miss this trusted guide used by thousands of tax professionals & CA students! Click here
On the same date, the petitioner’s bank account was attached. In its writ petition, the company made only a general statement about the attachment of its account with the State Bank of India without disclosing when exactly the attachment had taken place. The company also claimed that no notice in Form GST DRC-13 had been served, but did not place any supporting document on record.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that since a pre-deposit of Rs. 14,58,320 had already been made for the appeal, there was no justification for attaching the bank account. He also argued that the attachment was invalid without proper service of Form GST DRC-13.
The State’s counsel argued that the petitioner’s case was contradictory. They explained that documents showed the director of the company was aware of the show-cause notice and had even sought time to respond, citing the absence of the accountant during the Christmas vacation.
The single-judge comprising Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury observed that the pleadings were inconsistent and that without clear disclosure of the date of attachment, or proof of notice in Form GST DRC-13, or a written communication from the bank, the court could not grant relief.
The court held that the writ petition could not be entertained in the absence of specific disclosure and supporting material. The petition was dismissed without costs. The court clarified that this order would not prevent the petitioner from pursuing remedies before the appellate authority or filing afresh with proper disclosures.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
