M/S National Scrap Traders vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted that the learned advocate for the petitioner informed the Court that the attachment of the bank accounts had been lifted by the State. Since the primary challenge in the petition was to this attachment, and the issue had since been resolved by the State lifting the attachment, the Court was informed that nothing further survived in the petition. Consequently, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court granted this permission, and the petition was disposed of as withdrawn. No specific findings were made on the validity of the attachment or the procedural aspects raised by the petitioner, as the matter was resolved by the lifting of the attachment.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s National Scrap Traders, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging an order of provisional attachment dated July 13, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Unit-34, Palanpur. This attachment was made on two bank accounts of the petitioner, purportedly under Section 83 of the CGST Act, demanding a total amount of Rs. 38,15,438/- and Rs. 793098/-. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and direct the withdrawal of the bank attachment. The petition also prayed for a stay on the operation of the orders and alleged a violation of natural justice and lack of subjective satisfaction by the respondent authority before initiating attachment proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act was validly made, considering the petitioner's contention that no proper opportunity of being heard was provided and that the authority lacked subjective satisfaction. 2. Whether the action of the respondent authority in attaching the bank accounts was without jurisdiction due to the alleged absence of recorded reasons or subjective satisfaction as a pre-condition for provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the action of the respondent authority violated the principles of natural justice as no proper opportunity of being heard was given, contrary to Sections 75, 78, 79, and 83 of the CGST Act. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the action was without jurisdiction because the respondent authority failed to record subjective satisfaction or reasons before initiating proceedings for provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, which is a mandatory pre-condition. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondent State.