TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the challenge to provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under the GST law warranted interference in writ jurisdiction or whether the petitioner should first avail the statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) for release of the attachment.
Analysis: The dispute concerned attachment of the bank account under section 83 of the GST enactment. The Court treated the controversy as one that could be examined by the competent authority under Rule 159(5), including the objection that the attaching officers lacked jurisdiction. It held that the existence of a jurisdictional plea did not, by itself, render the authority powerless or justify bypassing the statutory mechanism. Following the earlier view on the availability and efficacy of the remedy under Rule 159(5), the Court considered it appropriate to require the petitioner to approach the authority first, which was to decide the application in accordance with law within a fixed time.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) for consideration of release of the attachment.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory mechanism exists for objection and release against provisional attachment, writ interference is ordinarily not warranted merely because a jurisdictional challenge is raised, and the aggrieved person must first exhaust the statutory remedy.
TaxTMI 
