High Court Quashes Account Freeze, Grants Relief, Issues Stay Order

The Gujarat High Court set aside and quashed a communication from the Principal Commissioner of Central GST to freeze the petitioner's account at Central Bank of India, granting relief by directing the banker to lift the provisional attachment. Subsequently, a notice under section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was issued demanding payment from the petitioner's account, alleging involvement in a fraudulent refund claim. The court ordered a stay on the notice until the next hearing, addressing the legal challenges faced by the parties involved.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to communication from Principal Commissioner of Central GST
2. Impugned notice under section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged a communication from the Principal Commissioner of Central GST to freeze their account at Central Bank of India, Rajkot Branch, Gujarat. The communication was dated 16.12.2020. The petitioner approached the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.16437 of 2020. The Gujarat High Court, in its final order dated 27.01.2021, set aside and quashed the communication, directing the petitioner's banker to lift the provisional attachment on the account. This action was taken after the petitioner's banker received the initial letter from the GST office, leading to the legal challenge and subsequent relief granted by the Gujarat High Court.

2. Following the order of the Gujarat High Court, the office of the Principal Commissioner of Central GST, Mumbai South issued a notice dated 03.02.2021 to the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India, Rajkot Branch, Gujarat under section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The notice demanded a payment of Rs. 47,25,000.00 from the account of M/s. Sky Corporation, alleging that the amount was due or may become due to the petitioner, who was accused of being involved in a fraudulent refund claim. It was highlighted that M/s. Sky Corporation, of which the petitioner is the proprietor, had not been under investigation until that point. The respondent's counsel waived notice for some respondents, and the petitioner was directed to serve one respondent afresh. A stay was ordered on the impugned notice dated 03.02.2021 until the next hearing scheduled for 20.04.2021.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the events and legal actions taken by the parties involved.

---