Commissioner's provisional attachment order under Section 83 CGST Act quashed for lacking proper opinion and statutory compliance

Allahabad HC quashed provisional attachment order under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017, finding it invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. The court held that Commissioner failed to form proper opinion based on tangible material showing proximate nexus with protecting government revenue interest. The attachment order lacked written opinion, reference to material necessitating attachment, and proper application of mandatory ingredients under Section 83. No proceedings under Section 74 were initiated. Writ petition allowed with Rs. 50,000 costs against respondents payable within two weeks.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2. Validity of the formation of opinion by the Commissioner for provisional attachment.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 83 of the CGST Act.
4. Imposition of costs for arbitrary and illegal actions by the respondent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017:
The petitioner sought relief against the order dated 19.05.2022, which directed the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner's earlier bank account attachment was quashed by the court on 11.05.2022 due to the absence of pending proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act at the time of attachment. Despite this, a new attachment order was issued the next day, which became the subject of the current writ petition.

2. Validity of the formation of opinion by the Commissioner for provisional attachment:
The respondents admitted that no proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act had been initiated against the petitioner as of 14.07.2022. The court emphasized that the Commissioner must form an opinion based on tangible material indicating the necessity of attachment to protect government revenue. The Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 771 clarified that the formation of opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to the purpose of protecting government revenue and must be based on tangible material.

3. Compliance with procedural requirements under Section 83 of the CGST Act:
Section 83 requires the Commissioner to form an opinion that attachment is necessary to protect government revenue and to issue an order in writing. The court found that the impugned order lacked the necessary ingredients, such as the formation of opinion and reference to tangible material. The court noted that each component of Section 83 must be strictly applied and complied with before a provisional attachment can be made. The absence of these components rendered the impugned order arbitrary and unsustainable.

4. Imposition of costs for arbitrary and illegal actions by the respondent:
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Atma Singh Grewal (2014) 13 SCC 666, which stressed that costs should be real and compensatory and, in some cases, exemplary. The court highlighted the need to recover costs from erring officers who make frivolous and irrational decisions. Given the arbitrary and illegal manner in which the impugned order was passed, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on the respondents, to be paid to the petitioner within two weeks.

Conclusion:
The impugned order dated 19.05.2022 under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, was quashed due to the absence of necessary procedural compliance and tangible material. The writ petition was allowed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the respondents for their arbitrary and illegal actions.

---