Court quashes bank account attachment, emphasizes balanced use of power

The court quashed the orders of provisional attachment of the bank accounts, holding that the interest of the government revenue was sufficiently secured by the excess tax paid by the applicants. The court also upheld the validity of the corrigendum and the authority of the Additional Director General to pass the provisional attachment order. The court emphasized the need for careful and balanced use of provisional attachment powers to protect revenue without unduly harming business operations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017.
2. Validity of corrigendum issued to rectify the reference from Section 74 to Section 67 of the CGST Act.
3. Authority of the Additional Director General to pass the order of provisional attachment.
4. Subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner for provisional attachment.
5. Balance between protecting government revenue and allowing business operations.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts:
The writ applicants challenged the provisional attachment of their bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The attachment was made on the grounds of alleged fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) and the need to protect government revenue. The applicants argued that no proceedings under Section 74 were pending, and thus, the attachment was without authority of law. The court noted that the total ITC availed by the applicants was Rs. 59,49,18,103, while the total tax paid was Rs. 63,62,41,525, indicating an excess payment of Rs. 4,13,23,422. The court concluded that the interest of the government revenue was sufficiently secured, and the provisional attachment was not justified.

2. Validity of Corrigendum:
The respondents issued a corrigendum to rectify the reference from Section 74 to Section 67 of the CGST Act in the provisional attachment order. The applicants argued that such a corrigendum was not permissible in law. The court found that the corrigendum was issued to correct an inadvertent error and did not alter the scope of the original order. The court held that the corrigendum was valid and did not vitiate the proceedings.

3. Authority of the Additional Director General:
The applicants contended that only the Commissioner could pass an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, and the Additional Director General lacked the authority. The court observed that the Additional Director General is equal in rank to the Commissioner and thus had the authority to invoke Section 83.

4. Subjective Satisfaction of the Commissioner:
The applicants argued that the subjective satisfaction required for provisional attachment was not met, as no proceedings under Section 67 were pending. The court emphasized that the subjective satisfaction must be based on credible materials and supervening factors. The court found that the respondents had sufficient material indicating substantial evasion of tax, justifying the provisional attachment.

5. Balance Between Protecting Government Revenue and Allowing Business Operations:
The court highlighted the need to balance the interest of government revenue and the business operations of the taxpayer. It noted that drastic measures like provisional attachment should be used sparingly and only when necessary to protect revenue. The court referred to previous judgments emphasizing that attachment of bank accounts should be a last resort and should not paralyze the business operations of the taxpayer.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of provisional attachment of the bank accounts, holding that the interest of the government revenue was sufficiently secured by the excess tax paid by the applicants. The court also upheld the validity of the corrigendum and the authority of the Additional Director General to pass the provisional attachment order. The court emphasized the need for careful and balanced use of provisional attachment powers to protect revenue without unduly harming business operations.

---