Piyush Shamjibhai Vasoya vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary

Facts

The petitioner, Piyush Shamjibhai Vasoya, proprietor of M/s. Sky Corporation, a commission agent at the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Gondal, filed a writ application challenging an order of provisional attachment of his bank account. This attachment was made by Respondent No. 2 under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that no proceedings under the specified sections of the CGST Act were pending against him, which is a prerequisite for invoking Section 83. The attachment was purportedly an offshoot of actions against other individuals involved in business with the petitioner. The amount in dispute is not specified.

Held

The Court held that Respondent No. 2 could not have invoked Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, for the purpose of passing an order of provisional attachment because no proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74 of the Act were pending against the writ-applicant. The language of Section 83 is plain and simple, requiring the pendency of such proceedings to protect government revenue. The Court reasoned that even if some business transactions with other individuals had surfaced, this alone would not confer jurisdiction to invoke Section 83. Consequently, the impugned order of provisional attachment was quashed and set aside. The Court clarified that if future proceedings are initiated as referred to in Section 83, the authority may invoke it in accordance with law, but the attachment could not continue as of that date. The bank was directed to permit the writ-applicant to operate his bank account. The Court noted that proceedings under Section 79, if initiated and pending, may continue in accordance with law, without expressing an opinion on their merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 2 could invoke Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, for provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account in the absence of any pending proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74 of the Act against the petitioner. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, explicitly requires the pendency of proceedings under specific sections (62, 63, 64, 67, 73, or 74) for the Commissioner to exercise the power of provisional attachment. Since no such proceedings were initiated or pending against the petitioner, the attachment order was illegal and without jurisdiction. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that proceedings under Section 79 of the Act, 2017, had been initiated against the writ-applicant and were pending. However, the Court did not delve into the merits of these Section 79 proceedings.