Provisional attachment under GST requires pending proceedings, tangible material, and hearing safeguards before property can be attached.

Article explains that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available against provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act because the alternate remedy rule is discretionary and does not bar challenge where jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice is alleged. It further states that provisional attachment is a drastic power that can be used only while the specified proceedings are pending, on tangible material, and on a necessity-based opinion to protect revenue. Rule 159(5) requires notice, objections, and a hearing before the attachment is sustained. On the facts described, the attachment was held invalid and the challenge succeeded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. (ii) Whether the provisional attachment orders were a valid exercise of power under Section 83 read with Rule 159(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Issue (i): Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The rule of alternate remedy is a rule of discretion and not a complete bar to writ jurisdiction. It does not apply where the impugned action is without jurisdiction or where there is a violation of natural justice. An appeal under Section 107 lies only from an order of an adjudicating authority, and the Joint Commissioner acting under delegated power under Section 83 was not such an authority for the purpose of Section 107. The writ challenge to the provisional attachment was therefore not barred by the existence of an appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the High Court erred in refusing to entertain it.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment orders were a valid exercise of power under Section 83 read with Rule 159(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: Section 83 permits provisional attachment only during the pendency of proceedings under the specified provisions and only where the Commissioner forms an opinion, on tangible material, that such attachment is necessary to protect revenue. The power is drastic and must be strictly conditioned by the statutory pre-requisites. Rule 159(5) confers two mandatory safeguards on the person whose property is attached: the right to object and the right to an opportunity of being heard. The order must also be supported by reasons and cannot rest on an unguided or subjective impression. Since the attachment was made before proceedings were initiated against the assessee under Section 74, without tangible material showing necessity, and the objections were rejected without a proper hearing, the statutory requirements were not met.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was invalid and illegal.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment succeeded, the High Court's dismissal was set aside, and the attachment orders stood quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A provisional attachment under Section 83 can be made only when proceedings under the specified provisions are pending against the taxable person and the Commissioner, on tangible material, forms a necessity-based opinion to protect revenue; the affected person must also be given the mandatory safeguards under Rule 159(5).

---