TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 751
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hment of the bank account vide FORM GST DRC-22 dated 29.11.2021 issued by Respondent No.1 as the same is dehors the provisions of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 and since the attachment of the cash credit account, not being the property of tax payer, is not permissible in law. (b) To quash and set aside the order dated 27.12.2021 issued by the respondent no.1 on the ground of it being issued violating the principle, Power of Superintendence and that the order of jurisdictional High Court is binding on all subordinate courts, judicial as well as quasi judicial authorities. (c) To direct the respondent no.3 to allow the petitioner operate his bank accounts. (d) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be said to have been opened to enable the writ applicant to borrow the money from the Bank for the purpose of its business. Any money therefore, that the Bank may make available to the assessee would necessarily be in the nature of a loan or a cash credit facility. In either case, it would be in the nature of borrowing by the writ applicant from the Bank. In such circumstances, the Bank and the writ applicant therefore, do not have the debtor - creditor relationship. The decision of this Court in the case of Kaneria Granito Ltd. has been followed in various other matters of the present type over a period of time. Various orders have been passed over a period of time condemning the action on the part of the department in provisionally attac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisional attachment of cash credit account shall no, longer operate. I observe that in the said case the FORM DRC 22 was issued by the Additional Commissioner and not by the Pr. Commissioner/ Commissioner as required by Section 83, and the cash credit account was specifically attached." 5. The Principal Commissioner says that the reliance placed by the writ applicant herein on one of the orders passed by this Court in the case of M/s. Formative Tex Fab vs. State of Gujarat is not binding to him as in the case of M/s. Formative Tex Fab (supra), the order of provisional attachment was passed by the Assistant Commissioner and not by the Principal Commissioner. 6. Prima facie, we are of the view that the Principal Commissioner, CGST, ....