TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 590
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India quashing the Impugned Intimation letter dated 25.08.2025 (Exhibit-K) passed by the Respondent No. 2 so far as same is also without jurisdiction, being passed in violation of Section 6(2)(b) of the MGST Act and in grossest violation of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate [2025 177 taxmann.com 478 (SC)]; c. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Respondents No. 1 and 2 to immediately remove the attachment of the following bank accounts of the Petitioner: i. AXIS BANK, Current Account No. 913020034504830 ii. AXIS BANK, Saving Account No. 923010013372432 iii. INDIAN BANK, Saving Account No. 495067459 iv. STATE BANK OF INDIA, Saving Account No. 31264955290 v. HDFC BANK, Saving Account No. 50100220025416" 2. The primary grievance of the Petitioner is in respect of the action taken by the State Tax Authority in provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tember 2025, the Petitioner filed reply disputing the jurisdiction of the Respondent No. 2. v. On 17th September 2025, the Respondent No. 1 - i.e. Joint Commissioner of State Tax passed order in Form GST DRC-22 provisionally attaching all five bank accounts of the Petitioner and it is this arbitrary action which the Petitioner seeks to challenge in the present Petition. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Sandeep Sachdeva appeared on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. Shruti Vyas, Addl. G.P. appeared on behalf of Respondent-State. 5. Mr. Sachdeva learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the action of the Respondents i.e. State Tax Authorities of provisionally attaching the bank accounts of the Petitioner is a complete abuse of the process of law and the said attachment has been in the year 2025 and continues even as of today. He further submitted that the said attachment has had a crippling effect on the business of the Petitioner and hence, the said action on the part of the Respondents is high handed and arbitrary. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the attachment of the bank accounts of the Petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and is passed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... further submitted this was not a case which would attract the provisions of Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act and therefore it would not be covered by the decision in the case of Armour Security (India) Ltd. (supra). 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the papers and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we proceed to decide the present Petition. 10. It is our view that this is a gross case of abuse of the process of law on the part of the Respondents, inasmuch as the attachment which has been sought to be done by the State Tax Authority is not only in contravention of the settled principles of law under the CGST and MGST Act but also amounts to depriving the Petitioner of their property and further recovery of tax being made without authority of law which is in contravention of the provisions of Article 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. We are in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that once the Central Tax Authority has sought to assess/recover an identical alleged tax liability from the Petitioner on the same subject matter for the same period, then, the State....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated by the Department seek to assess or recover an identical or a partial overlap in the tax liability, deficiency or obligation arising from any particular contravention, the bar of section 6(2)(b) would be immediately attracted. (ix) Where the proceedings concern distinct infractions, the same would not constitute a "same subject-matter" even if the tax liability, deficiency, or obligation is same or similar, and the bar under section 6(2)(b) would not be attracted. (x) The twofold test for determining whether a subject-matter is "same" entails, first, determining if an authority has already proceeded on an identical liability of tax or alleged offence by the assessee on the same facts, and secondly, if the demand or relief sought is identical. 98. We issue the following guidelines to be followed in cases where, after the commencement of an inquiry or investigation by one authority, another inquiry or investigation on the same subject-matter is initiated by a different authority. (a) Where a summons or a show-cause notice is issued by either the Central or the State tax authority to an assessee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings, otherwise has no locus to claim which authority should proceed with the inquiry or investigation in a particular matter. (g) However, where the authorities are unable to reach a decision as to which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation, then in such circumstances, the authority that first initiated the inquiry or investigation shall be empowered to carry it to its logical conclusion, and the courts in such a case would be competent to pass an order for transferring the inquiry or investigation to that authority. (h) If it is found that the authorities are not complying with these aforementioned guidelines, it shall be open to the taxable person to file a writ petition before the concerned High Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India. (i) At the same time, taxable persons shall ensure complete cooperation with the authorities. It is incumbent upon them to appear in response to a summons and/or reply to a notice." 11. Considering the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. (supra), we have no hesitation in holding that the action on the part of the R....