GST provisional attachment requires Commissioner's bona fide satisfaction on credible material, and notice-and-hearing safeguards must be followed.

Provisional attachment under GST section 83 is valid only where the Commissioner forms a bona fide satisfaction, on credible material, that attachment is necessary to protect revenue; a mechanical exercise by a subordinate officer is not sufficient. On the facts described, attachment of bank accounts and stock was unsustainable because the drastic remedy was not justified by the material on record. The text also states that assessment under section 74 requires notice and an opportunity of hearing before tax, interest, and penalty are determined, and that blocking input tax credit by a mere computer entry has no legal basis in the manner adopted. The impugned measures were set aside, subject to fresh action in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Tax Officer could validly exercise the power of provisional attachment under section 83 through delegation by the Commissioner. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment of bank accounts and stock, the blocking of input tax credit, and the assessment order passed without notice and hearing were sustainable in law.

Issue (i): Whether the State Tax Officer could validly exercise the power of provisional attachment under section 83 through delegation by the Commissioner.

Analysis: The power under section 83 is vested in the Commissioner, and the formation of opinion for protecting revenue must rest on relevant material. A drastic power of provisional attachment cannot be justified merely because proceedings under section 67 are pending. Delegation was examined in the setting of the Gujarat GST framework, but the Court held that the statutory requirement of the Commissioner's opinion could not be displaced by an order passed mechanically by a subordinate officer. The exercise of power had to be founded on credible material and a live nexus with the need to protect revenue.

Conclusion: The exercise of provisional attachment by the State Tax Officer was not sustainable and is held to be invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment of bank accounts and stock, the blocking of input tax credit, and the assessment order passed without notice and hearing were sustainable in law.

Analysis: The Court held that provisional attachment is an extreme measure to be used sparingly, only on weighty grounds, and not as a tool of harassment. The materials on record did not justify the necessary satisfaction for attachment, and the attachment could not be equated with recovery proceedings. The assessment under section 74 also required issuance of notice and opportunity of hearing before determination of tax, interest, and penalty. Blocking of input tax credit by a mere computer entry was found to have no legal basis in the manner adopted.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment orders, the blockage of input tax credit, and the assessment order were illegal and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded. The impugned fiscal measures were set aside, while leaving it open to proceed afresh in accordance with law by issuing proper notice and granting hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment under section 83 can be sustained only on the Commissioner's own statutory satisfaction based on credible material showing a real need to protect revenue, and coercive GST action affecting liability or credit must comply with the notice-and-hearing requirements of the Act.

---