Writ plea against bank account attachment rejected for concealment; remedy lies under Rule 159(5) CGST Rules, costs imposed

HC dismissed the writ petition challenging attachment of the petitioner's bank account, observing concealment of material facts regarding the DGGI investigation and alleged fraudulent ITC availed. The court noted that the petitioner failed to disclose the ongoing investigation and related details despite having full knowledge. It held that the petitioner has an adequate remedy to file objections against the freezing order under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules and therefore did not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to be deposited within two weeks in the HC Staff Welfare Fund.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the provisional attachment/freezing of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 could be challenged in writ proceedings on the ground that it continued beyond one year and without service of the attachment order.

1.2 Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for concealment and non-disclosure of material facts relating to ongoing investigation, issuance of summons, recording of statements, physical inspection, and quantum of alleged tax evasion/ITC availment.

1.3 What directions and remedies, including imposition of costs, were warranted in light of the petitioner's conduct and the subsisting departmental proceedings, including availability of objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Challenge to provisional attachment/freezing of bank account under Section 83 CGST Act

Legal framework (as discussed):

2.1 The Court noted that under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, freezing/provisional attachment of a bank account is valid only for a period of one year.

2.2 The Court referred to the freezing/provisional attachment order dated 1 October 2024 issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, recording initiation of proceedings under Sections 67 and 74 and indicating alleged GST evasion of approximately Rs. 1939.66 lakhs.

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.3 The Court recorded that the petitioner had alleged that no order or notice was supplied and that the account remained frozen for more than one year without further action.

2.4 Upon production of the original departmental file and the bank's records, the Court found that a written provisional attachment order dated 1 October 2024 existed, clearly reciting proceedings under Sections 67 and 74, details of the bank account, and the amount of GST evasion, and stipulating that only debit over and above Rs. 1939.66 lakhs would be allowed.

2.5 The Court found that substantial proceedings were in fact underway: investigation by DGGI, initiation under Sections 67 and 74, substantial ITC running into crores availed by the petitioner, issuance of summons under Section 17, and recording of the petitioner's statement on 13 May 2025.

2.6 Having regard to the availability of a specific statutory remedy, the Court held that the petitioner could file objections to the provisional attachment under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules before the Department, instead of invoking writ jurisdiction on the grounds urged.

Conclusions:

2.7 The Court declined to interfere with the provisional attachment/freezing order in writ jurisdiction.

2.8 The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy to file objections under Rule 159(5), which, if availed, must be considered and decided by the Department in accordance with law.

Issue 2 - Non-disclosure and concealment of material facts in the writ petition

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.9 On examination of the original departmental file and submissions of the Investigating Officer, the Court found that the petitioner was working under the name "Steelmart India", had availed substantial ITC running into crores for the year 2024-25, and was under active investigation by DGGI.

2.10 The Court noted that summons had been issued and the petitioner's statement had been recorded on 13 May 2025, demonstrating the petitioner's knowledge of the investigation and the proceedings.

2.11 The Court relied on the physical inspection report under Section 67(1), which showed that when the investigating team visited the principal place of business on 30 August 2024, the premises of "Steelmart India" could not be traced or located; persons in the area were unaware of such a firm; and the inspection authorization under Section 67(1) could not be executed as the premises was found non-operational/non-existent at the registered address.

2.12 The Court observed that there was "more than what meets the eye", and that there was clear concealment of material facts: the writ petition contained no whisper of the DGGI investigation, the quantum of ITC allegedly fraudulently availed, the physical inspection, or the summons and statement, despite the petitioner's complete knowledge of these proceedings.

Conclusions:

2.13 The Court held that the writ petition was vitiated by concealment and suppression of material facts and was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

Issue 3 - Consequential directions, costs, and liberty to pursue statutory remedies

Interpretation and reasoning:

2.14 Having found concealment and ongoing investigation involving alleged GST evasion and fraudulent ITC availment, the Court held that imposition of costs was warranted.

2.15 The Court also considered that the statutory mechanism under Rule 159(5) provides a specific remedy against provisional attachment and should be pursued by the petitioner, if so advised.

Conclusions:

2.16 The writ petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,00,000/-, directed to be deposited within two weeks with the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund, with specified bank account details.

2.17 The original departmental file produced was directed to be returned to the Investigating Officer.

2.18 The DGGI and GST Department were expressly left free to proceed in accordance with law against the petitioner.

2.19 It was clarified that if the petitioner files objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, the same shall be considered and decided by the Department in accordance with law.

2.20 The matter was directed to be listed for compliance on the specified future date.

---