Provisional attachment of bank account under Section 83 CGST Act upheld due to substantial material supporting Revenue's interest protection

Bombay HC rejected petition seeking revocation of provisional attachment of petitioner's bank account under Section 83 CGST Act, 2017. Court held Commissioner had substantial material to form opinion that Revenue's interest required protection. Petitioner failed to establish prima facie case against provisional attachment or provide tangible material to confront department's action. Subsequently issued show cause notice dated 29th February 2024 under Sections 74(1) and 122 CGST Act demanding Rs. 3.63 crores tax with abundant supporting material gathered during investigation. Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the rejection of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order confirming the provisional attachment of a bank account under Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rule, 2017. The main contention is the lack of tangible material for the Commissioner to confirm the attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Application for Revocation of Provisional Attachment
The petitioner filed an application under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, seeking revocation of the provisional attachment of the bank account. The court observed that the essential elements required to persuade the authority to revoke the attachment were absent from the application. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the application were deemed insufficient to challenge the material forming the basis of the attachment.

Issue 2: Sufficiency of Material for Attachment
The court noted that there was substantial material available for the Commissioner to form an opinion that protecting the interest of the Revenue necessitated the attachment. The petitioner's contentions did not provide enough grounds to dispel the material relied upon for the attachment. The court highlighted that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case against the provisional attachment.

Issue 3: Show Cause Notice and Further Proceedings
It was brought to the court's attention that a Show Cause Notice had been issued to the petitioner under the provisions of the CGST Act, along with the Maharashtra GST Act and IGST Act. The notice contained abundant material supporting a tax demand of Rs. 3.63 crores against the petitioner. Given the discrepancy between the demand and the amount in the petitioner's bank account, the court found no merit in the petition and rejected it, allowing the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of tangible material and proper grounds for challenging provisional attachments under tax laws, ultimately upholding the Commissioner's decision based on the available evidence and the interest of Revenue protection.

---