Bharatbhai Manilal Patel vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Bharatbhai Manilal Patel, filed a writ application challenging orders dated September 18, 2019, and September 21, 2019, which provisionally attached his bank account, stock, and a plot of land. A notice dated September 21, 2019, was also challenged. The petitioner contended that the provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act did not specify the proceedings under which it was invoked, rendering it without legal authority. Furthermore, the attachment of goods worth Rs. 85,73,002/- and a shed under Section 79 of the CGST Act was challenged as being without an assessed liability. An earlier order dated October 10, 2019, had directed the release of the petitioner's bank account.

Held

The Court noted that the writ application was filed challenging two aspects: the attachment of immovable property under Section 83 and the provisional attachment of the bank account under Section 83. The ad-interim order had already directed the release of the bank account. Regarding the attachment of immovable property, the Court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on merits due to two developments. Firstly, the impugned order of provisional attachment of the immovable property had expired, having outlived its statutory life. Secondly, it was brought to the Court's notice that the final assessment proceedings had been concluded. Consequently, the Court decided not to adjudicate the writ application further and disposed of it accordingly. The notice issued earlier was discharged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act was without authority of law due to the absence of reference to the specific proceedings under which it was invoked? 2. Whether the attachment of goods and immovable property under Section 79 of the CGST Act was without authority of law in the absence of an assessed liability? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order under Section 83 was invalid because it failed to mention the specific proceedings (Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74 of the CGST Act) under which it was made. They also contended that the attachment of goods and property under Section 79 was illegal as it was done without any assessed tax liability. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state respondents.