Provisional Bank Account Attachment Under CGST Act: Parties Directed to Pursue Refund Through Proper Administrative Channels HC examined a dispute involving provisional attachment of bank account under CGST Act. The court declined to directly resolve conflicting claims about the ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Provisional Bank Account Attachment Under CGST Act: Parties Directed to Pursue Refund Through Proper Administrative Channels
HC examined a dispute involving provisional attachment of bank account under CGST Act. The court declined to directly resolve conflicting claims about the Rs.1 crore deposit and directed petitioners to file a refund application with the designated tax officer within two weeks. All legal contentions were preserved, and the matter was disposed of without imposing costs.
Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment are the provisional attachment of petitioner's bank account u/s 83 of CGST Act, and the demand for deposit of Rs.1 crore prior to the attachment.
Provisional Attachment of Bank Account: The petitioners had no further grievance regarding the provisional attachment of their bank account u/s 83 of CGST Act as it had already been revoked. The petitioners' counsel stated that the prayers related to this issue in the petition had become infructuous.
Coercive Deposit Demand: The grievance raised was regarding the demand for deposit of Rs.1 crore before the provisional attachment. The petitioner argued that the concerned officer had no legal authority to make such a demand, freeze the bank account, and issue a show cause notice. The petitioner claimed entitlement to an immediate refund of the amount. The respondent's counsel contended that the amount was voluntarily deposited.
Court's Decision: The court held that it could not delve into the conflicting contentions in the Article 226 petition. If the petitioner believed the amount was not payable or should not have been demanded, it was for the authority to decide upon refund if an application was made. The court directed the petitioners to submit an application for refund to the designated officer of the respondent within two weeks. The court stated that the petitioners would be heard on the application, and an appropriate order would be passed. All contentions were expressly kept open.
Disposition: The court disposed of the matter in the aforementioned terms, with no costs imposed.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
