Court questions legality of prohibition order under GGST Act due to lack of evidence, stays attachment pending further proceedings

The court found that the order of prohibition dated 30.7.2019, issued under the GGST Act, was possibly beyond the Officer's powers as the properties mentioned were not found during the search. The provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts and office premises was questioned, with concerns raised about exceeding the Officer's powers. A rule returnable on 10.10.2019 was issued, staying the order and attachment until further proceedings, with direct service allowed for effective communication.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of prohibition dated 30.7.2019 under the GGST Act, 2017.
2. Provisional attachment of property under section 83 of the GGST Act.
3. Justification for attaching bank accounts along with office premises.
4. Scope of powers of the concerned Officer under subsection (2) of section 67 of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's advocate highlighted that the order of prohibition dated 30.7.2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under rule 139(4) of the GGST Act, 2017, was challenged as being beyond the scope of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 67 of the Act. The court noted that the properties mentioned in the prohibition order were not found during the search of the petitioner's premises, indicating that the attachment was possibly beyond the Officer's powers under the Act.

2. The respondents were accused of provisionally attaching the petitioner's three bank accounts and office premises under section 83 of the GGST Act. The petitioner argued that the value of the immovable property attached exceeded the estimated liability, questioning the necessity of attaching bank accounts when the office premises were already attached to secure any potential liabilities arising from an assessment order.

3. During the hearing, the court considered the submissions made by both parties. The Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents was heard, and it was observed that the attachment of the property seemed to surpass the Officer's powers specified in subsection (2) of section 67 of the GGST Act, raising concerns about the justification for the attachments made by the respondents.

4. In light of the arguments presented and the examination of the order dated 30.7.2019, the court decided to issue a rule returnable on 10.10.2019. The Assistant Government Pleader and the Senior Standing Counsel representing the respondents waived the service of notice of the rule. As an interim measure, the court stayed the order issued under rule 139(4) of the GGST Rules and the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under section 83 of the GGST Act until further proceedings. Direct service of the order was permitted on the same day for effective communication.

---