Mandatory GST notice and hearing requirements control demand validity, and unlawful bank attachment cannot survive a defective assessment.

GST adjudication requires service of the mandatory show cause notice and a real opportunity of hearing before tax, interest, or penalty can be determined; a summary notice alone is insufficient, and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure under the Jharkhand GST framework vitiates the demand. Provisional attachment of a bank account is also sustainable only if the statutory conditions are independently met and the underlying proceedings are lawful; where the demand itself is illegal, the attachment cannot stand. The note further records that such defects justify setting aside the demand and recovery steps, with fresh adjudication to follow in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned assessment and demand proceedings were vitiated for want of the mandatory show cause notice and for breach of natural justice under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; (ii) Whether the attachment and freezing of the petitioner's bank account could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned assessment and demand proceedings were vitiated for want of the mandatory show cause notice and for breach of natural justice under the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires service of a proper show cause notice before adjudication and determination of tax, interest, and penalty. The record indicated that the petitioner was not served with the mandatory notice contemplated under Section 73 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the summary notice alone was insufficient. The order was also passed without affording an effective opportunity of hearing and without due compliance of the procedure prescribed for adjudication.

Conclusion: The impugned order and consequential demand proceedings were invalid and liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): Whether the attachment and freezing of the petitioner's bank account could be sustained.

Analysis: Attachment of property, including a bank account, is permissible only in accordance with the statutory conditions and by a lawful order issued for the purpose contemplated by Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The attachment in the present case was found to be without proper foundation, beyond jurisdiction, and unsustainable once the underlying demand proceedings were held to be illegal. The statutory limitation on provisional attachment also supported interference.

Conclusion: The attachment and freezing of the bank account were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned demand and recovery actions were set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand under GST cannot be sustained unless the mandatory statutory notice and hearing requirements are complied with, and any consequential attachment must independently satisfy the statutory prerequisites.

---