2024 (5) TMI 1035 - HC - GST

Commissioner must form opinion that attachment necessary to protect revenue before ordering provisional attachment under Section 83 MGST Act

Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd., PCIL & MBPCL Joint Venture, and PCIL HAM Talegaon Dhamdhere Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.

Patil Construction & Infrastructure Ltd., PCIL & MBPCL Joint Venture, and PCIL HAM Talegaon Dhamdhere Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of State Tax & ... Issues Involved:1. Validity of provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the MGST Act.2. Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements for provisional attachment.3. Application of the Supreme Court's judgment in Radha Krishan Industries.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Provisional Attachment Orders under Section 83 of the MGST ActThe Writ Petitions sought the quashing of impugned orders in FORM GST DRC-22 dated 5th April 2024, issued under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (MGST Act), read with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) and Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The attachment orders were issued to protect the interest of government revenue, as the Petitioner allegedly failed to discharge tax liabilities.2. Compliance with Procedural and Substantive Requirements for Provisional AttachmentThe Court scrutinized the procedural adherence to Section 83 of the MGST Act, which mandates that the Commissioner must form an opinion that provisional attachment is necessary to protect the interest of government revenue. The Court found that the impugned order lacked material evidence showing the necessity of attaching the Petitioner's bank accounts. The Court emphasized that the power to levy a provisional attachment is draconian and must be exercised with strict observance of statutory preconditions, as outlined by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh.3. Application of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Radha Krishan IndustriesThe Court referred extensively to the Supreme Court's judgment in Radha Krishan Industries, which clarified that the power to order a provisional attachment must be based on tangible material indicating that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand. The Supreme Court held that the formation of an opinion by the Commissioner must have a proximate and live nexus to the purpose of protecting government revenue. The necessity to attach must be more stringent than mere expediency. The Court found that the Joint Commissioner failed to apply this principle, leading to a non-application of mind and rendering the provisional attachment illegal.ConclusionThe Court concluded that the impugned attachments in FORM GST DRC-22 dated 5th April 2024, and the order passed under Section 83 also dated 5th April 2024, were invalid due to non-compliance with the legal requirements set forth by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Writ Petitions were allowed, and the attachments were quashed. However, the Court clarified that the GST Authorities could issue a fresh provisional attachment order if they satisfy the requirements as per the Supreme Court's guidelines in Radha Krishan Industries.Final OrdersThe Writ Petitions succeeded, and the impugned attachments were quashed. There was no order as to costs. The Court also noted that this order would not preclude the GST Authorities from issuing a fresh provisional attachment order in compliance with the Supreme Court's judgment. The order was to be digitally signed, and all concerned were to act on the production of a digitally signed copy of the order.