The case of the petitioner is that the impugned attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is without any statutory sanction as it is consequent upon action under Section 67 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authorities to engage in inspection, search and seizure. This Writ Petition is, thus allowed. The impugned order of attachment is set aside.
Attachment of bank account— Section 83 of CGST Act—In the instant case, petitioner challenges proceedings issued by the first respondent attaching the petitioner’s bank accounts in terms of Section 83 of CGST Act, based upon proceedings for search and seizure launched as against the petitioner in terms of Section 67 of the Act.
In short, the case of the petitioner is that the impugned attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is without any statutory sanction as it is consequent upon action under Section 67 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authorities to engage in inspection, search and seizure.
In the present case, there are serious allegations in regard to the excess claim of ITC based on transactions with non-existent or fraudulent entities. However, such allegations are to be based upon supporting materials and evidences if they are to translate into an ‘opinion’ as required in terms of Section 83.
Held that— The opinion of Respondent in this case is far more cryptic revealing total nonapplication of mind and merely repeating what R1 has stated in his request for sanction. This Writ Petition is, thus allowed. The impugned order of attachment is set aside.
The case of the petitioner is that the impugned attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is without any statutory sanction as it is consequent upon action under Section 67 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authorities to engage in inspection, search and seizure. This Writ Petition is, thus allowed. The impugned order of attachment is set aside.
Attachment of bank account— Section 83 of CGST Act—In the instant case, petitioner challenges proceedings issued by the first respondent attaching the petitioner’s bank accounts in terms of Section 83 of CGST Act, based upon proceedings for search and seizure launched as against the petitioner in terms of Section 67 of the Act.
In short, the case of the petitioner is that the impugned attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is without any statutory sanction as it is consequent upon action under Section 67 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authorities to engage in inspection, search and seizure.
In the present case, there are serious allegations in regard to the excess claim of ITC based on transactions with non-existent or fraudulent entities. However, such allegations are to be based upon supporting materials and evidences if they are to translate into an ‘opinion’ as required in terms of Section 83.
Held that— The opinion of Respondent in this case is far more cryptic revealing total nonapplication of mind and merely repeating what R1 has stated in his request for sanction. This Writ Petition is, thus allowed. The impugned order of attachment is set aside.