https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791293 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. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 May 2026 07:30:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791293 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. Case-Laws GST Thu, 30 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791293