TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been modified by the order at Ext.P9. The petitioner is directed to furnish the security in the form of bank guarantee in the name of the Hon'ble President of India, equivalent to the credit balance available as on 20.08.2020 which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is about ₹ 30 crores. Neither the order at Exts.P6(series) nor the order at Ext.P9 reflects anything which substantiate that interest of revenue requires this action to be taken in the matter. What is the reasonable apprehension with the authority is not disclosed in the order at Ext.P6(Series) or in the order at Ext.P9 - Furnishing bank guarantee of about ₹ 30 crores would certainly block that much amount from the business of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling a writ petition bearing No.16533 of 2020, the petitioner had challenged the attachment of his bank accounts pursuant to the powers conferred by Section 83 of the CGST Act. During pendency of the said writ petition, by order dated 24.08.2020 (Ext.P9), the respondent had modified the provisional attachment of bank accounts by imposing the following conditions:- ''(a) Furnishing of security in the form of bank guarantee in the name of the President of India equivalent to the credit balance available as on the bank, closing hours on 20.08.2020, i.e, date of hearing, in the accounts sought to be restored. The bank guarantee should be valid for one year from date of issue. You should produce your account statement/certi@ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 107 of the Act and only 10% of the disputed amount can be pre-deposited for filing such appeal and the demand is deemed to be stayed by deposit of this 10% of the disputed amount. The maximum deposit for filing such statutory appeal is only ₹ 25 Crores. With this, it is submitted that directing the petitioner to furnish the bank guarantee of about thirty crores of rupees which was the credit balance in his account would seriously affect his business and is contrary to the provisions prescribed for adjudicating the demand which can be made in pursuant to the search effected under Section 67 of the CGST Act. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order at Ext.P9 direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner can resort to the appellate remedy, if he is factually aggrieved by the modification of provisional attachment. In the wake of the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the modified orders are illegal. 8. I have considered the submission so advanced and also considered the judgments relied on by the parties. 9. The view expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.19533 of 2019 in Kushal Ltd., V. Union of India has been kept in abeyance by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Anr. V. Kushal Ltd Anr by an order dated 16.11.2020 passed in Special Leave to Appeal(C). No.10070 of 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r provisional attachment should be exercised only if there is sufficient material on record to justify the satisfaction that the assessee is about to dispose of wholly or any part of his / her property with a view to thwarting the ultimate collection of demand and in order to achieve the said objective, the attachment should be of the properties and to that extent, it is required to achieve this objective. [5] The power under Section 83 of the Act should neither be used as a tool to harass the assessee nor should it be used in a manner which may have an irreversible detrimental effect on the business of the assessee. [6] The attachment of bank account and trading assets should be restored to only as a last resort or measure. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27. During the course of the hearing Mr. Sridharan had referred to averments made in the writ petition more particularly to Ground No.11 to submit that petitioner had already offered to respondent No.2 its land, building and plant and machinery having estimated gross value of approximately ₹ 44 crores to secure the interest of the revenue. In such circumstances, we are of the view that recourse to section 83 by respondent No.2 straight away is not justified. Prima facie, such an exercise appears to be harsh and excessive thus arbitrary.'' 12. In the case in hand, search was conducted on 09.06.2020 and the further proceedings thereof are still pending. Claiming to be necessary in the interest of revenue, by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
