TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was justified after consideration of objections and hearing; (ii) whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy after adjudication of the tax demand.
Issue (i): Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was justified after consideration of objections and hearing.
Analysis: The attachment was not treated as arbitrary because the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to the earlier direction of the Court, those objections were considered, and a reasoned order was passed. The Court also distinguished the reliance on the decision concerning unlawful provisional attachment, noting that the procedural safeguard of hearing had been complied with in the present matter. The subsequent adjudication of the tax demand reinforced the justification for continuing the attachment for the statutory period.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was held to be justified.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of the statutory appellate remedy after adjudication of the tax demand.
Analysis: Since the show cause notice had already culminated in an adjudication order under Section 74 and the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal, the Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The existence of an efficacious alternate remedy weighed against grant of relief in the writ proceeding.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained in view of the statutory appellate remedy.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed, and the petitioner was left to pursue the remedy available in appeal against the adjudication order.
Ratio Decidendi: A provisional attachment under Section 83 is sustainable where objections are considered and heard, a reasoned order is passed, and the taxpayer has an efficacious statutory appellate remedy after adjudication of the demand.
TaxTMI 
