GST seizure and provisional attachment upheld where statutory remedies were not used and the assessee failed to cooperate with inquiry.

In GST search and seizure matters, the High Court noted that where the assessee does not cooperate with summons, remains absent during investigation, and fails to use statutory remedies for release of seized goods or de-sealing, interference under Article 226 is ordinarily unwarranted. The Court treated the sealing of business premises, seizure action under Section 67, and provisional bank-account attachment under Section 83 as measures within the statutory framework, and found no legal infirmity on the facts. A plea based on Section 6(2)(b) was held inapplicable. The writ challenge to the departmental action was therefore rejected and the petition dismissed without costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging sealing of business premises, seizure action and provisional attachment of bank account under the GST law was maintainable and whether the impugned departmental action called for interference.

Analysis: The dispute arose from search and seizure action under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, followed by sealing of premises and provisional attachment of the bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the petitioner did not cooperate with the investigation, remained absent despite summons, and did not avail the statutory mechanisms available for release of seized goods or for de-sealing. It further held that the authorities acted within the powers conferred by the GST enactment and that the petitioner had not shown any legal infirmity in the attachment or sealing measures. The plea based on Section 6(2)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was found inapplicable on the facts, and the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not to be invoked where the petitioner had an alternative statutory course and had failed to cooperate with the inquiry.

Conclusion: The challenge to the sealing, seizure and bank-account attachment was rejected, and the writ petition was held not fit for interference.

Final Conclusion: The departmental action was upheld and the petition was dismissed without costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute provides a specific mechanism for dealing with seizure, sealing and provisional attachment, and the assessee does not cooperate with summons or exhaust the statutory remedies, the High Court will ordinarily decline interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

---