High Court Validates GST Property Attachment, Grants Limited Bank Account Access for Continued Business Operations Under Section 83

HC upheld provisional attachment of properties under GST Act, allowing partial relief by permitting operation of two bank accounts during ongoing adjudication proceedings. The court balanced financial restrictions with business continuity, rejecting full challenge to attachment order while providing limited operational flexibility for the appellant's business activities.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Provisional attachment of immovable properties and bank accounts under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and Rules without application of mind.
2. Availability of an alternate remedy for challenging the orders before the appellate authority.

Summary:
Issue 1:
The writ appeal was filed challenging the provisional attachment of immovable properties and bank accounts under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act and Rules. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that the orders were passed by the first respondent within legal authority and that the appellant had an effective alternate remedy to challenge the orders before the appellate authority. The appellant contended that if all bank accounts were attached, it would hinder business operations during the investigation. The respondents argued that the show cause notice quantified a demand of Rs.8.59 crores, with potential additional liabilities. The Court acknowledged the need to balance financial restrictions on the appellant while allowing legitimate business activities. Consequently, the Court directed the lifting of attachment on two specific bank accounts to enable the appellant to operate them during the adjudication proceedings.

Issue 2:
The Court found that the appellant should be allowed to operate two bank accounts during the pendency of the adjudication proceedings initiated by the respondents. The Court emphasized the importance of enabling the appellant to conduct legitimate business activities while defending against the proceedings. Apart from this modification, the Court refrained from interfering with the judgment of the learned single Judge on all other aspects. The writ appeal was closed with the above directive.

---