TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition was filed by the respondent herein, challenging the order of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("CGST Act" for brevity). The respondent contended that the allegation made against them that they have fraudulently availed input tax credit on fictitious invoices to discharge the GST liability is wholly unsustainable and the Department erroneously proceeded in taking action against the officials of the respondent/writ petitioner and an order of arrest was also passed and the respondent had moved this Court by way of application for grant of bail in Crl.O.P.Nos.2175 and 2176 of 2021, wherein, a conditional order was passed and the respondent has partly complied with the conditions and b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visional attachment was not maintainable. 4.The learned Writ Court, after taking note of all the factual circumstances, was of the view that a sum of Rs. 5.68 Crores, which was lying in the Bank Account of the respondent, was appropriated by the appellant/Department and that the respondent had also agreed to pay another sum of Rs. 1 Crore against the estimated tax due of about Rs. 21 Crores. According to the learned Writ Court, the payment of Rs. 5.68 Crores would amount to discharge of 27.05% of the estimated tax dues and therefore, the learned Writ Court came to the conclusion that there is no meaning in attaching the Bank Account. Furthermore, the Court held that the order of attachment of the Bank Account would infringe their right u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the fact remains that the appellant/Department has not disposed of the said application by passing a reasoned order. The explanation given by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that, pursuant to the said representation, summons was issued to the Director of the respondent company and statement has been recorded and the respondent has not furnished any alternate security to secure the interest of Revenue. In fact, we find that there is no order to the said effect. 6.The question is whether an order is required to be passed if an objection is field in terms of Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules. This issue has been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Radha Krishnan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the objections filed under Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules have not been disposed of by passing a reasoned order. It will be too early for the learned Writ Court to make an observation that there is no meaning in attaching the Bank Account further. It is too early for the Court to adjudicate as to whether at all the future receivables, if any, could be attached. We say so because, the statutory Rule provides for a procedure, where the person whose Bank Account has been attached, can seek for lifting of such attachment. Thus, the respondent, having sought for lifting the attachment by filing representation/objection dated 18.03.2021, ought to have pursued the same. Without pursuing the said objections, a challenge to the provisional attachment ord....