Title: Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is a drastic power, says Delhi High Court

Last updated: 27 January 2021

Court :
High Court of Delhi

Brief :
By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a communication dated 25.11.2020/01.12.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), by which the bank account of the petitioner in the respondent no.3-Bank (“the Bank”) has been attached by respondent no. 2, purportedly under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act”)

Citation :
W.P.(C) 11245/2020 & CM APPL. 35053/2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 6th January, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 11245/2020 & CM APPL. 35053/2020

PROEX FASHION PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Govind Rishi, Advocate

versus

       GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS.         ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr.Harpreet Singh, Adv. for R-2
                             Mr.S.K.Tanwar, Adv. for R-3

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

% The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge a communication dated 25.11.2020/01.12.2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), by which the bank account of the petitioner in the respondent no.3-Bank ("the Bank") has been attached by respondent no. 2, purportedly under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the Act").

2. The contention of Mr. Govind Rishi, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the respondent authorities have taken action against the petitioner under Section 83 of the Act, pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 71 of the Act, whereas Section 83 of the Act, on its terms, cannot be invoked in such a situation.

3. By an order passed on 30.12.2020, notice was issued to the respondents and they were directed to file a counter affidavit. Although time was extended for the said purpose yesterday, Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.2, states that the counter affidavit has been filed only this morning and is thus not on record. However, a copy of the counter affidavit has been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner and has also been made available to me electronically. Mr. Singh is directed to ensure that the counter affidavit is brought on record during the course of the day.

Please refer to the attached file for full judgement.