9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 107 - HC - GSTProvisional attachment of the petitioner s bank account u/s 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - reasons to believe and the material upon which the 2nd Respondent derived its opinion that the attachment of the Bank Account was necessary is never been furnished to the Petitioner till date - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - On a bare reading of Section 83(1) it is clear that where after the initiation of any proceeding under Chapter XII Chapter XIV or Chapter XV the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government Revenue it is necessary so to do he may by an order in writing provisionally attach any property including a Bank Account of the taxable person. The power provided under Section 83 has to be exercised in the manner provided therein. The power to cause attachment of a Bank Account is drastic in nature inasmuch as it could in certain situations bring the business of the taxable person to a grinding halt. The impugned order refers to the proceedings initiated under Section 67 as the basis for causing the Provisional Attachment. This is undisputed. Admittedly the proceedings under Section 67 stood concluded on 18th October 2024 and there is no determination of any tax amount or even calling upon the Petitioner to show-cause as to why any tax amount ought not to be recovered from him. No proceedings for raising a demand on the Petitioner have been filed till date. This apart before the attachment is levied the Commissioner has to form an opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government Revenue it is necessary to attach any property including the Bank Account of the taxable person. This opinion has to be based on material and cannot be on the basis of assumptions and presumptions of the Commissioner. The impugned order dated 27th January 2025 does not set out any material which form the basis of the opinion for attaching the Bank Account of the Petitioner. Conclusion - Attachment cannot be sustained if proceedings under Section 67 have concluded without any demand or show-cause notice. The impugned order is unsustainable and would have to be set aside - Petition allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity and legality of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the MGST Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 83(1) of the MGST Act empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach any property, including bank accounts, belonging to a taxable person after initiation of proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV, or XV, if the Commissioner is of the opinion that such attachment is necessary to protect Government revenue. Sub-section (2) limits such attachment to a maximum period of one year. The power is thus discretionary but must be exercised judiciously and on valid grounds. The Court referred to the Supreme Court precedent in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2021) 6 SCC 771, which emphasized that such powers are drastic and must be exercised with caution, based on tangible material and not mere assumptions or presumptions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the power under Section 83 is drastic and could severely impact the business operations of the taxable person. Therefore, the Commissioner must act with circumspection and ensure that the attachment is based on a reasoned opinion supported by material that the revenue is at risk. The Court stressed that the opinion must be formed after due application of mind and cannot be arbitrary. Key evidence and findings: The impugned order dated 27th January 2025, issued in Form GST-DRC-22, provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account citing proceedings under Section 67 of the MGST Act. However, the proceedings under Section 67 had concluded on 18th October 2024 without any determination of tax liability or issuance of a show-cause notice. The petitioner had cooperated fully during the search and investigation and had not been called upon for further proceedings since November 2024. Application of law to facts: The Court found that since the Section 67 proceedings were concluded without any demand or adjudication, and no show-cause notice was issued, the basis for the attachment was tenuous. The impugned order did not disclose any material or reasons forming the basis for the Commissioner's opinion that attachment was necessary to protect revenue. The petitioner's request for reasons and material was not responded to by the Commissioner. Treatment of competing arguments: The State argued that the attachment was justified as proceedings under Section 67 had been initiated and that the attachment was provisional to safeguard revenue. The Court rejected this argument on the ground that mere initiation of proceedings is insufficient; there must be a reasoned opinion based on material. The absence of any demand or show-cause notice and the failure to communicate reasons to the petitioner weighed heavily against the State's position. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned provisional attachment was unsustainable in law as it lacked the requisite reasoned opinion and material basis. The attachment was quashed, and the petitioner was permitted to operate its bank account. Issue 2: Procedural safeguards and communication of reasons Relevant legal framework: The MGST Act and principles of natural justice require that before depriving a person of property or rights, the authority must communicate reasons and afford an opportunity to be heard. Although Section 83 does not explicitly mandate issuance of a show-cause notice before attachment, the exercise of such a drastic power must be accompanied by disclosure of reasons and material to the affected party. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that even if the impugned order was in a prescribed format (Form GST-DRC-22), the Commissioner was obliged to furnish the reasons and material on which the opinion was based when requested by the petitioner. The failure to provide such reasons amounted to violation of procedural fairness and natural justice. Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's letter dated 3rd February 2025 requested the Commissioner to furnish the reasons and material for the attachment. No response was received. The impugned order itself was silent on the reasons or material basis for attachment. Application of law to facts: The Court held that the absence of communicated reasons or material to the petitioner rendered the attachment arbitrary and unjustified. Treatment of competing arguments: The State did not furnish any material or reasons to justify the attachment. The Court found this lack of transparency unacceptable. Conclusions: The Court held that procedural safeguards were not complied with, and the failure to communicate reasons was fatal to the validity of the attachment. Issue 3: Scope and limits of attachment power in absence of demand or show-cause notice Relevant legal framework: Section 67 of the MGST Act deals with search and seizure and initiation of proceedings for determination of tax liability. Section 83 provides for provisional attachment after initiation of proceedings under specified chapters. However, attachment is a protective measure and not a substitute for adjudication or recovery proceedings. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the Section 67 proceedings had concluded without any determination of tax liability or issuance of a show-cause notice. The attachment under Section 83 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of concluded investigation without any pending demand or recovery proceedings. The power to attach must be exercised only when there is a real risk of revenue loss and pending proceedings to justify such risk. Key evidence and findings: No show-cause notice or demand notice had been issued to the petitioner at the time of attachment. The petitioner was not under any ongoing proceedings that would justify immediate attachment to protect revenue. Application of law to facts: The Court found that attachment in such circumstances was premature and lacked legal basis. Treatment of competing arguments: The State's reliance on initiation of proceedings under Section 67 was insufficient to justify attachment when those proceedings had been concluded without demand. Conclusions: The Court concluded that the attachment was beyond the permissible scope of Section 83 in the absence of pending proceedings or demand, and was therefore invalid. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
Core principles established include:
Final determinations were that the impugned provisional attachment order was quashed and set aside, and the petitioner was permitted to operate its bank account. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the Department from initiating recovery proceedings or issuing show-cause notices in accordance with law.
|
