Gspr Developers Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, Barasat Charge And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, GSPS Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the attachment of its bank account. The attachment was purportedly made in relation to an adjudication order issued under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period April 2020 to March 2021. The petitioner had filed an appeal against this adjudication order, but it was filed beyond the prescribed time and accompanied by an application for condonation of delay. The appeal was filed on September 1, 2025, and the petitioner claims its bank account was attached on the same day. The petitioner also stated that a pre-deposit of Rs. 14,58,320/- had been made. However, the petition did not disclose the exact date of attachment or provide details of any notice in Form GST DRC 13. The petitioner claimed ignorance of the show cause notice, but the Court noted evidence suggesting the petitioner's director was aware of it.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained. The primary reason for dismissal was the lack of specific disclosures by the petitioner regarding the exact date of bank account attachment and the absence of any notice in Form GST DRC 13. The Court noted that the petitioner's claim of unawareness of the show cause notice was contradicted by evidence suggesting the director's knowledge. The Court reasoned that without a clear disclosure of when the bank account was attached, and in the absence of a DRC-13 notice or written communication from the bank, no relief could be granted. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that this order would not prevent the petitioner from applying to the appellate authority or filing a fresh application with appropriate disclosures if advised. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank account is valid in the absence of disclosure of the exact date of attachment and any notice in Form GST DRC 13, especially when the petitioner claims to have not been served with such notice? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under GST law). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the attachment of its bank account was arbitrary and illegal, particularly as it was allegedly made on the same day the appeal was filed and without proper notice in Form GST DRC 13. They argued that they were unaware of the show cause notice, and therefore, the subsequent attachment was unjustified. Revenue/State's arguments: The State did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment regarding the validity of the attachment. However, the Court's observations suggest that the petitioner's case was found to be contradictory, and the absence of specific disclosures regarding the attachment and notice was a critical factor.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
25 17.09.2025 sb
Ct.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE GSPS Developers Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Barasat Charge & Ors.
Mr. Avra Mazunder
Mr. Akshat Agarwal
Mr. Parikshit Karmakar
Ms. Sreeja Mukherjee
Mr. Amitava Mitra
Ms. Urmi Sengupta
… For the petitioner.
Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty
Mr. Saptak Sanyal
… For the State.
Affidavit of service filed in Court is taken on record.
The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, challenging the order of attachment of the petitioner’s bank account.
It is the petitioner’s case that challenging an adjudication order issued under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) dated 27th February, 2025, for the tax period April, 2020 to March, 2021, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority. Admittedly, such appeal was filed beyond the time prescribed and for reasons as aforesaid, the same was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay.
From the available records it would transpire that the appeal was filed on 1st September, 2025. In the interregnum, however, the petitioner contends that on 1st September, 2025 itself the bank account of the petitioner has been attached. No disclosure has been made in the writ petition as to the date on which such attachment has been made. A general statement in paragraph 9 of the writ petition has been made that the petitioner’s bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, the proforma respondent, has been attached. No disclosure has been made with regard to the any notice in Form GST DRC 13. In response to a query from the Court it is submitted that the petitioner has not been served with any notice issued in Form GSTDRC 13, though there is no such reflection in the writ petition. Admittedly, the appeal has been filed out of time. Immediately upon filing of the appeal since, according to the petitioner, a pre-deposit of Rs.14,58,320/- has been made, the petitioner has rushed before this Court by filing the above writ petition on 8th September, 2025 praying for a direction that the attachment order should be withdrawn. A scrutiny into the statements made would demonstrate that though the petitioner contends that it was unaware of the show cause notice, from the documents on record it would appear that the director of the petitioner was not only aware of the show cause notice but had also sought for time since the accountant who looking after the GST has been on leave during the Christmas vacation. The case made out by the petitioner appears to be contradictory. In absence of any specific disclosure when the bank account has been attached and without any DRC-13 or without a written communication from the bank, no relief can be afforded.
In the light of the above, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed without any order as to costs. The above order shall not impede upon the rights of the petitioner to either apply before the appellate authority or to apply with by appropriate disclosure, if so advised.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for be given to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.