Petitioners allowed to withdraw requests to de-freeze bank accounts under CGST Act. The court granted the petitioners' request to withdraw their petitions seeking directions to de-freeze bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Petitioners allowed to withdraw requests to de-freeze bank accounts under CGST Act.
The court granted the petitioners' request to withdraw their petitions seeking directions to de-freeze bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitions were disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioners having the liberty to file objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. If objections are raised, respondent No.1 is directed to promptly decide on them after providing the petitioners with a hearing, in accordance with the CGST Rules, 2017.
Issues: Petition seeking direction to de-freeze bank accounts under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 without proper authority, reasons, and post-decisional hearing.
Analysis: The petitioners filed petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking directions to de-freeze/withdraw restrictions on their bank accounts in Union Bank of India and Axis Bank. The Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Mumbai Central had provisionally attached the accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioners argued that the orders were passed by the Additional Commissioner, not the Commissioner as required by the Act, lacked reasons, prevented refund crediting, and denied post-decisional hearing.
The learned counsel for the petitioners highlighted several issues with the provisional attachment orders. Firstly, the orders were issued by the Additional Commissioner, contrary to the requirement of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. Secondly, the orders lacked reasons supporting the attachment. Thirdly, the petitioners were unable to receive refunds from the Custom Department due to the frozen accounts. Lastly, the petitioners were not granted a post-decisional hearing, depriving them of an opportunity to present their case.
On the other hand, the counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argued that the orders under Section 83 only prohibited debit transactions, allowing for the crediting of refunds from the Custom Department. Additionally, it was mentioned that the orders were issued in compliance with FORM GST DRC-22 as per Rule 159 of the CGST Rules. Regarding the lack of post-decisional hearing, it was stated that the petitioners could raise objections, which would be considered by the appropriate authority.
Ultimately, in light of the arguments presented, the counsel for the petitioners sought to withdraw the petitions with liberty to file objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The court granted the request, allowing the petitions to be disposed of as withdrawn. However, if objections are raised under Rule 159(5), respondent No.1 is directed to decide on them promptly after providing the petitioners with a hearing, in accordance with the CGST Rules, 2017.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
TaxTMI 
