Provisional attachment under GST need not follow pre-decisional hearing, and Section 6(2) bar requires proof of prior identical proceedings.

Provisional attachment under the CGST Act was treated as a protective measure that does not, by itself, require a pre-decisional hearing, because the statute and Rule 159(5) provide a post-decisional opportunity to object and be heard. The plea that proceedings were barred by Section 6(2) of the CGST Act was rejected as premature, since no foundational material showed prior initiation of identical proceedings by State GST authorities. Writ interference under Article 226 was declined because the dispute involved allegations of fake invoices, fictitious entities and circular trading, with a statutory remedy still available and connected proceedings pending. The attachment was left to abide by the outcome of those proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned proceedings were barred under Section 6(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to prior action by State GST authorities; (ii) Whether the provisional attachment order was vitiated for want of pre-decisional hearing; (iii) Whether interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned proceedings were barred under Section 6(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 due to prior action by State GST authorities.

Analysis: The plea of statutory bar was not supported by foundational material. No show-cause notice, adjudicatory step, or document demonstrating initiation of proceedings by the State authorities, identity of subject matter, or common tax period was placed on record. A jurisdictional objection of this nature cannot be examined in the abstract on bald averments alone.

Conclusion: The objection under Section 6(2) was rejected as premature and unsupported by material.

Issue (ii): Whether the provisional attachment order was vitiated for want of pre-decisional hearing.

Analysis: Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 does not expressly or by necessary implication provide for a pre-decisional hearing. The statutory scheme, as recognised in binding precedent, treats provisional attachment as a protective measure and provides a post-decisional mechanism under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 for objections and hearing. The absence of prior notice, including during custody, therefore did not by itself invalidate the attachment.

Conclusion: The challenge based on absence of pre-decisional hearing was negatived.

Issue (iii): Whether interference was warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The allegations concerned fraudulent availment of input tax credit, fake invoices, fictitious entities, and circular trading, which involved disputed facts and revenue protection concerns. An effective statutory remedy was available under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, and the writ court declined to intervene at the nascent stage. The matter was also connected with pending proceedings whose outcome was to govern the attachment.

Conclusion: No case for writ interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed, but the affected person retained the statutory remedy against the attachment and the attachment was left to abide by the outcome of the connected proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is a protective fiscal that does not require a pre-decisional hearing, and a jurisdictional bar under Section 6(2) must be established by cogent material showing prior initiation of identical proceedings by the other authority.

---