2023 (5) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... vide mahazar dated 24.01.2019. 2. The petitioner claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing aluminium frames, UPVC windows/shutters and similar goods. There was an inspection in his business premises on 24.01.2019 for alleged bill trading in violation of the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act', in short). 3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, there was seizure effected on various documents and electronic devices under mahazar dated 24.01.2019. The petitioner was also arrested and remanded to judicial custody and thereafter incarcerated in Puzhal. He was subsequently granted bail in Crl.O.P.No.8528 of 2019 on 09.03.2019. 4. In January, 2019, an order under Section 83 of CGST Act had ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nks to permit operation of the Bank accounts. 7. A larger issue that arise in this case is as to whether Section 83 contemplates a continued attachment of bank accounts for several years as has happened in the present case. No doubt, the provisional attachment envisaged is for the protection of revenue and in light of the proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV and XV of the Act. 8. The above chapters encompass all proceedings from inspection till assessment. However, the question that would arise is as to whether the proceedings may be kept pending endlessly such that attachments of bank accounts traverse three to four years seamlessly. It is the case of the respondents that the delay is on account of the non-response of the petitioner to sh....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Section 83 yet again, if the circumstances so warrant, at a later juncture in the proceedings, in accordance with law. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 12. In that case, attachment was dated 23.11.2020 and the petitioner had filed the writ petition in 2021, that came to be decided on 05.10.2021. At paragraphs 9 to 12, I have noted the allegations relating to fraudulent claim of ITC. While deciding the matter in October, 2021, writ petition had been allowed directing the respondents to issue show-cause notice, directing the petitioner to cooperate and the proceedings to be finalised within a time fixed period. 13. I had also granted liberty to the respondents to resort to Section 83 if need so arose based on the det....