Abdul Kahlek Mondal vs. The State Of Assam And 4 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Kahlek Mondal, challenged a summary of show cause notice (Form GST DRC-01 dated 11/09/2024) and an order (Form GST DRC-07 dated 22/10/2024) issued by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Dhubri (Respondent No. 4). These were issued under Section 74 of the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, demanding Rs. 31,48,508/- along with interest and penalty for refunds related to April 2021 to August 2022. The petitioner also challenged the debit freeze of his bank account (No. 916020080314082) by Axis Bank Limited (Respondent No. 5) at the behest of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Dhubri (Respondent No. 3). The bank stated it acted on the request of Respondent No. 3. The GST authorities claimed the debit freeze was to save public money, apprehending fraud, though not strictly under Section 83 of the AGST Act.

Held

On the first issue, the Court did not enter into the merits of the challenge to the show cause notice and order under Section 74, as the petitioner sought liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The Court granted this liberty, making it clear that the period spent in the High Court would be excluded from the period of limitation. On the second issue, the Court held that the debit freeze of the bank account, admittedly without support of any prescribed provision of law, was exercised without jurisdiction and therefore stood interfered with. The Court noted that while Section 83 of the AGST Act allows for attachment and Rule 159(5) provides for appeals against such orders, the action taken in this instance was not supported by any specific legal provision. The Court did not comment on any subsequent initiation of proceedings under Section 83 by the revenue.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned summary of show cause notice and order issued under Section 74 of the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act, demanding Rs. 31,48,508/- for refunds from April 2021 to August 2022, are valid? The petitioner argued that these were wrongly issued and sought liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The revenue did not present arguments on this specific challenge as the petitioner sought to withdraw it. 2. Whether the debit freeze of the petitioner's bank account by the bank, at the instance of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, was legally justified? The petitioner contended it was an illegal action. The revenue argued that while not strictly under Section 83, the action was taken to save public money due to apprehended fraud. The court considered Section 83 of the AGST Act and Rule 159(5) of the Assam GST Rules, 2017, regarding appeals against attachment orders.