Provisional attachment under GST requires pending proceedings and competent commissioner approval; without both, the action lacks jurisdiction.

Provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83 of the Maharashtra GST Act is valid only when proceedings under the specified provisions are pending and the Commissioner forms the necessary opinion that attachment is required to protect revenue. The text notes that no proceeding under Section 67 was shown to be pending against the taxpayer, the investigation related to another entity, and the attachment was ordered by the Joint Commissioner without discernible authorization from the Commissioner. In such circumstances, the attachment is described as lacking jurisdiction, and the availability of an objection under Rule 159(5) does not prevent writ relief where the action itself is unauthorized.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was valid when no proceedings under Section 67 were pending against the petitioner and the attachment was ordered by the Joint Commissioner without discernible authorization of the Commissioner.

Analysis: Section 83 permits provisional attachment only during pendency of proceedings under the specified provisions and only when the Commissioner forms the requisite opinion that such attachment is necessary to protect revenue. The record showed that the search and investigation were initiated in relation to another entity, and no proceeding under Section 67 was shown to be pending against the petitioner. The order also reflected that the attachment was made by the Joint Commissioner, while the statutory power under Section 83 is vested in the Commissioner. In the absence of the statutory preconditions and the necessary authority, the attachment could not be sustained. The availability of an objection under Rule 159(5) of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 did not bar relief in writ jurisdiction because the impugned action was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was invalid and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The bank attachment was set aside and the authorities were directed to withdraw it forthwith, resulting in relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment under Section 83 can be sustained only when the statutory preconditions exist and the order is made by the competent authority; absent a pending proceeding against the taxable person and the Commissioner's requisite satisfaction or authorization, the attachment is without jurisdiction.

---