Appellant challenges bank account attachment, Revenue directive issued, Commissioner's compliance confirmed, contempt proceedings dismissed. Tribunal closes case.

The appellant sought to lift the attachment of its bank account without a hearing, leading to a directive for the Revenue to justify the attachment. Subsequently, the Commissioner's compliance with the Tribunal's order and due process was confirmed, resulting in the dismissal of contempt proceedings. The Tribunal, satisfied with the Commissioner's actions, closed the case, concluding the legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application for lifting attachment of bank account without opportunity of hearing.
2. Allegation of defying tribunal order leading to contempt proceedings.
3. Compliance with due process of law for recovery of government dues.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application seeking the lifting of the attachment of its bank account, which was assigned a specific number by the Registry. The Bench noted that the bank accounts were attached without granting an opportunity of hearing, which was against the principles of natural justice. An order was issued to the Revenue to explain the circumstances of the attachment, and a reply was requested by a specified date. The matter was scheduled for multiple hearings, during which both sides presented their case.

2. The Bench issued a notice to the Commissioner to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated for allegedly defying the Tribunal's order. However, upon reviewing the case records, it was found that the Commissioner had indeed filed a detailed reply explaining the case as per the Bench's order. The Revenue's representative also provided a chronological account of events leading to the recovery of the amount, demonstrating compliance with statutory provisions and due process of law. It was concluded that the Commissioner had adhered to the Tribunal's order, and therefore, contempt proceedings were deemed unnecessary.

3. The Tribunal, after thorough examination, determined that the matter could not proceed further based on the orders issued and the compliance demonstrated by the respondent Commissioner. Consequently, the case was closed for all purposes. The judgment was pronounced in court on a specified date, bringing the legal proceedings to a conclusion.

---