Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 788 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking defreezing of petitioner's bank account - freezing not to be operative beyond a period of one year - Jurisdiction to pass such order - order not issued by the Commissioner, but by an officer of a lower rank - HELD THAT:- In terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act, no order of provisional attachment could be issued by any officer other than the Commissioner, and third, that the conditions as stipulated under Section 83 of the CGST Act, that is, if the Commissioner is satisfied, that it is necessary in the interest of the Revenue to issue such an order is not reflected in the impugned attachment order.
Revenue on advance notice states, at the outset, that a communication is being issued to the concerned bank to clarify that the order is no longer operative. He also states that the officers of the GST Department have been sensitised on the nature of such an order and their jurisdiction to issue the same.
It is considered apposite to direct that the concerned bank (Bandhan Bank) will not interdict the operations of the petitioner’s bank account on the basis of the impugned order dated 27.04.2022 - petition disposed off.