2025 (4) TMI 1740 - HC - GST

Bank account attachment over revenue demand notice challenged; court refuses relief, orders taxpayer to reply within four weeks.

In a writ challenging a revenue authority's communication and consequent notice attaching a bank account and seeking lifting of attachment with interest, ... Challenge to communication and notice for attachment of bank account - seeking lifting of bank account with interest - HELD THAT:- Though several contentions have been urged by the petitioner in the present petition in support of its claim, having regard to undisputed fact that the petitioner has not submitted its reply / response to the impugned communication at Annexure-H dated 08.11.2024, it is deemed just and appropriate to dispose of this petition, directing the petitioner to submit its reply / response to the impugned communication at Annexure-H dated 08.11.2024 and by further directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the said reply and documents etc., produced by the petitioner and proceed further in accordance with law. The petitioner is hereby directed to submit its reply / response along with relevant documents if any to the impugned communication issued by the respondent No. 2 at Annexure-H dated 08.11.2024 within a period of four weeks from today - Writ petition is hereby disposed of. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether the Court should adjudicate the legality of the impugned recovery-related communications/notices and bank account attachment when the assessee had not submitted any reply/response to the latest impugned communication calling for its response. (ii) What directions should be issued to ensure completion of the recovery-related proceedings in accordance with law, including opportunity of hearing and timelines, in light of the assessee's failure to respond. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Adjudication of challenge to recovery action despite non-response to the latest communication Legal framework (as discussed in the judgment): The Court considered the fact that recovery proceedings had been initiated under Section 79 of the CGST Act and that the authority asserted that such recovery was initiated without issuing a show cause notice under Sections 73 or 74, stating that 'due procedure' for recovery had been followed. The Court also considered its earlier order which had directed furnishing of pre-existing notices/intimations/documents and an opportunity to reply, without expressing any opinion on merits. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated as undisputed that after the authority issued the impugned communication dated 08.11.2024 (enclosing the documents referred to in the earlier order), the assessee did not submit any reply/response, and the authority also did not proceed further. In these circumstances, although multiple contentions were urged against the recovery action, the Court declined to enter into merits because the matter had not progressed to a stage where the authority could consider the assessee's response and take a decision. The Court therefore found it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by restoring the process contemplated earlier-reply by the assessee followed by consideration and decision by the authority. Conclusion: The Court did not conclusively decide the legality or validity of the impugned recovery action/communications on merits, and instead disposed of the petition on the ground that the assessee had not responded to the impugned communication calling for its reply. Issue (ii): Directions to ensure lawful consideration, hearing, and timely decision Legal framework (as discussed in the judgment): The Court proceeded on the requirement that the authority consider the assessee's reply, provide 'sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing', and then pass orders 'in accordance with law', consistent with the procedural course directed earlier. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the procedural standstill caused by the assessee's non-response, the Court balanced fairness and administrative finality by fixing (a) a time-bound obligation on the assessee to file its reply with documents, and (b) a time-bound obligation on the authority to consider the reply, afford hearing, and decide the matter. The Court thereby ensured that the dispute would be processed first at the departmental level after the assessee's response, rather than being prematurely determined in writ jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the petition with directions: the assessee must submit its reply/response with relevant documents within four weeks; upon receipt, the authority must consider the reply, provide sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing, and take an appropriate decision/pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of submission of the reply.