https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779109 The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notice dated 21.03.2025 that directed non-payment/attachment of amounts payable by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. The court held the GST authority failed to specify the statutory provision and grounds justifying provisional attachment, rendering the exercise arbitrary. Relying on SC precedent, the HC stressed that unguided discretion cannot permit pre-emptive strikes on a taxpayer's property and that a valid formation of opinion is required to protect revenue before provisional attachment is ordered. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Sep 2025 08:34:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779109 The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notice dated 21.03.2025 that directed non-payment/attachment of amounts payable by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. The court held the GST authority failed to specify the statutory provision and grounds justifying provisional attachment, rendering the exercise arbitrary. Relying on SC precedent, the HC stressed that unguided discretion cannot permit pre-emptive strikes on a taxpayer's property and that a valid formation of opinion is required to protect revenue before provisional attachment is ordered. Case-Laws GST Wed, 24 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779109