Court quashes bank account attachment under GST Act due to lack of notice

The Court set aside the order attaching the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, due to lack of communication of the Commissioner's written order for objections. Additionally, the Court directed the refund of the deposited amount based on a Division Bench Judgment, overriding the respondents' reliance on a different High Court judgment. The miscellaneous application was disposed of accordingly, aligning with the main case decision.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order attaching the petitioner's bank account.
2. Prayer for refund of a deposited amount without a Show Cause Notice or demand.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the order attaching the petitioner's bank account
The petitioner challenged the order attaching his bank account, invoking Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the respondents argued that the order was passed with the consent of the Commissioner. The Court noted that under Rule 159, a person whose property has been provisionally attached can file objections. If the written order of the Commissioner is not communicated to the person, they would not have the opportunity to understand the reasons for the attachment and file effective objections. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of attachment.

Issue 2: Prayer for refund of a deposited amount
The petitioner sought a refund of an amount deposited without a Show Cause Notice or demand. The respondents claimed that the amount was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner, and a Show Cause Notice had been subsequently issued demanding more duty. The petitioner relied on a Division Bench Judgment of the Court in a similar case, where a refund was directed after retaining 10% of the duty demanded. The respondents cited a judgment of the Delhi High Court, suggesting that the aggrieved person could file a suit for recovery. The Court held that the Division Bench Judgment of the Court would prevail over the judgment of another High Court. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the prayer for refund in line with the earlier Division Bench Judgment.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the order attaching the petitioner's bank account and directed the refund of the deposited amount following the precedent established in a previous Division Bench Judgment. The miscellaneous application, if any, was also disposed of in light of the main case decision.

---