M/S Siddha Mahajan PVT.LTD.Reg.No.(Gstin/Unique Id)09Abhcs9070P1Ze Thru.Director Rakesh Kumar Singh vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Ministry Of Finance , New Delhi And Others

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-service of the provisional attachment order and the consequent inability to file objections. While the respondents argued that an Additional Director General is equivalent to a Commissioner, the Court did not definitively rule on the jurisdictional issue. Instead, the Court permitted the petitioner to file objections to the order dated March 8, 2024, within two weeks. The Court directed the appropriate authority to consider and decide these objections expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, within two weeks thereafter. If the objections are favorably considered, the authority is to pass appropriate orders for the release of the petitioner's account. The petitioner was also granted liberty to raise all grounds, including jurisdiction, in their objections.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Siddha Mahajan Pvt. Ltd., is registered under the U.P. G.S.T. Act, 2017. The petitioner obtained a cash credit facility from the Bank of Maharashtra on December 18, 2023. The grievance in this writ petition concerns an order dated March 8, 2024, passed by the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, Lucknow Zonal Unit. This order, in Form GST DRC-22, directed the Branch Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra to provisionally attach the petitioner's cash credit account and other accounts operated by the company on the same PAN, preventing any debits. The petitioner contends that the order was served only on the bank and not on them, violating Rule 159(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, thus preventing them from filing objections.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of provisional attachment dated March 8, 2024, passed by the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, Lucknow Zonal Unit, is in violation of Rule 159(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, for non-service of a copy upon the petitioner? The petitioner argued that non-service of the order prevented them from availing the remedy of filing objections under Rule 159(5). 2. Whether the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, Lucknow Zonal Unit, has the jurisdiction to pass an order under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017, which the petitioner contended should be passed by the Commissioner? The respondent argued that as per Section 3(d) of the GST Act, an Additional Director General is equivalent to the Commissioner, thus validating the order.