Interim Order Halts Revenue Actions on Refund Demands

The Court issued an interim order directing Revenue Authorities not to act on demand notices for refund and bank account attachment. The order restrained HDFC Bank from remitting funds from the petitioner's account to GST authorities. The Court noted a pending matter with a similar interim order and instructed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner until the assessment was completed. The case was listed for further hearing after three weeks.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to validity of impugned notice for refund demand, non-consideration of special rate request, challenge to subsequent order for bank account attachment.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an impugned notice dated 01.01.2021 demanding a refund of Rs. 6,47,530, claimed to be 50% of the earlier refunded GST amount, along with interest. The petitioner contended that the Revenue Authority did not consider their request for fixing a special rate before issuing the demand notice. Additionally, the petitioner contested an order dated 22.04.2021, which led to HDFC Bank initiating the process to attach the petitioner's bank account used for various expenses, including employee salaries.

The Court noted that a similar matter, WP(C) No.2431/2021, was pending, where an interim order was passed on 09.04.2021 staying a similar demand notice and restraining bank account attachment. The Standing Counsel, GST acknowledged this order. Consequently, the Court issued a similar interim order directing Revenue Authorities not to act on the demand notices dated 01.01.2021 and 22.04.2021 for bank account attachment. The HDFC Bank and other respondents were instructed not to remit funds from the petitioner's account to GST authorities as per the notice dated 22.04.2021.

The Standing Counsel, GST informed the Court that the demand notice regarding the petitioner's request for a special rate was under examination and likely to be resolved within four weeks. As a result, no coercive action would be taken against the petitioner based on the demand notice until the Revenue Authorities completed their assessment. The Court acknowledged this submission and listed the case for further hearing after three weeks.

---