Global Enterprises vs. The Commissioner Of Central CGST East Delhi & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was invalid. The Court reasoned that a prerequisite for exercising powers under Section 83 is the pendency of proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74 of the Act. In this case, the respondents fairly conceded that no such proceedings were pending against the petitioner at the time the order dated May 19, 2020, was issued. Furthermore, proceedings under Section 74 were initiated only after November 10, 2020. Consequently, the necessary jurisdictional elements for the provisional attachment were not present on the date the order was passed. The Court quashed the order dated May 19, 2020, and consequently, the order dated July 10, 2020, also stood quashed. The Court clarified that its order would not prevent the respondents from issuing a fresh order for provisional attachment in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, Global Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging two orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Tax, GST, Delhi East. The first order, dated May 19, 2020, directed the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The second order, dated July 10, 2020, dealt with the adjudication of objections filed by the petitioner under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court noted that proceedings under Section 74 of the Act were initiated only after November 10, 2020, and that on January 18, 2021, only Rs. 40,000/- was available in the petitioner's bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was valid when no proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74 of the Act were pending against the petitioner at the time of the attachment order. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order was invalid because the prerequisite for exercising powers under Section 83, namely the pendency of proceedings under the specified sections, was not met. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Central CGST East Delhi, conceded that no proceedings under the aforementioned sections were pending against the petitioner prior to the issuance of the provisional attachment order dated May 19, 2020.