M/S Arramva Corporation And Ors. vs. The Additional Director General And Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable before it on the ground of territorial jurisdiction, as part of the cause of action arose within its territorial limits since the petitioner's bank account in Kolkata was attached, even though the order was passed by an authority in Guwahati. Regarding the legality and validity of the provisional attachment order, the Court, after conjointly reading Sections 1(2), 6(1), 83, 122(1), and 122(1A) of the CGST Act, relevant circulars, notifications, and considering the materials found during the investigation, held that the CGST Guwahati authority's action of attaching the petitioner's bank account was legal, valid, and within jurisdiction. The Court found that the attachment was justified in light of the materials found against the petitioner during the investigation. Therefore, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The Court dismissed the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Arramva Corporation, a partnership firm registered in Kolkata, along with its partners, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order dated March 22, 2023, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The order, passed by the Additional Director General, DGGI, Guwahati, provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account maintained with HDFC Bank in Kolkata. The petitioner argued that the Guwahati authority lacked territorial jurisdiction and that the attachment was invalid as no proceedings were pending against the firm under Chapters XII, XIV, or XV of the CGST Act. The petitioner also contended that the order was not in the prescribed format (GST DRC-22) and was issued without proper notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment order issued by an authority in Guwahati, given that the petitioner is registered in Kolkata and its bank account in Kolkata was attached? 2. Whether the Additional Director General, Guwahati, had the jurisdiction to invoke Section 83 of the CGST Act for provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account without any pending proceedings against the firm, especially when incriminating documents were found concerning other entities in which a partner of the petitioner is also a partner? 3. Whether the provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act is legal and valid in view of Section 122(1) and 122(1A) of the CGST Act, 2017, read with Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, particularly concerning the prescribed format and procedural requirements? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Court had jurisdiction as part of the cause of action arose in Kolkata. They argued that Section 83 could only be invoked if proceedings were pending and that the order was not in the prescribed format (GST DRC-22), rendering it non est in law. They also argued that the attachment was based on investigations into other entities and not directly related to the petitioner firm. Revenue's arguments: The respondent authorities argued that the impugned order was within their jurisdiction and that the petitioner's arguments regarding jurisdiction and procedural validity were unsustainable.