Court sets aside attachment order under GST Act, finding it invalid; directs account defreezing.

The Court set aside the provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, finding it ultra vires as no proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time of the attachment. The Court directed the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's bank account, without awarding costs, while emphasizing that lawful actions could still be pursued.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order of provisional attachment of property dated November 9, 2020, issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) under Section 83 of the Act. The petitioner's counsel argued that at the time of the attachment, no proceedings under relevant sections of the Act were pending, thus questioning the jurisdictional basis for invoking Section 83. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner contended that the order of attachment was ultra vires the Act. The respondent argued that the petitioner's premises were searched on December 3, 2020, under Section 67(2) of the Act, implying pending proceedings.

The Court considered the submissions and noted that the crucial date for assessing the validity of the attachment was November 9, 2020, when the order was issued. It found that no proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by that date. The Court rejected the argument that proceedings against a different entity justified the attachment, citing a Supreme Court decision. It held that without the necessary jurisdictional fact, invoking Section 83 was impermissible, rendering the attachment order ultra vires.

Consequently, the Court held that the provisional attachment order was ultra vires Section 83 of the Act and set it aside. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to immediately defreeze the petitioner's bank account. No costs were awarded. The Court clarified that its decision did not prevent the respondents from taking lawful actions in the matter.

---