Amit Gupta vs. The Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Through The Principal Director General

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court found that the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available by approaching the competent authority and filing objections under Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. Consequently, the Court saw no reason to entertain the writ petition. The Court disposed of the petition by permitting the petitioner to file objections within 15 days from the date of the order. It further directed that if objections are filed within the stipulated period, the competent authority shall consider and decide them in accordance with the law within a further period of three months from the date of filing the objections. The Court did not rule on the merits of the petitioner's contentions regarding Section 83 of the CGST Act or the binding nature of the CBIC circular.

Facts

The petitioner, Amit Gupta, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging orders of attachment of his properties issued by the Additional Director General of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Regional Unit, Jamshedpur. The attachments were made via Form GST DRC-22 dated July 31, 2024, and October 28, 2024, with instructions sent to authorities in Kolkata. The petitioner sought to declare that property attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is invalid without fulfilling its modalities and that guidelines issued by the CBIC via Circular No. 359 dated February 23, 2021, are binding. The petitioner argued that actions taken by an officer not designated as such, leading to orders under Section 83, are non est in law.

Key Issues

1. Whether an attachment of property under Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) is permissible without fulfilling the modalities and restrictions enumerated therein? 2. Whether the guidelines issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) via Circular No. 359 dated February 23, 2021, are binding on the authorities, and if an action taken by an officer not designated as such under Section 83 of the CGST Act renders the order non est in law? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that Section 83 of the CGST Act has specific modalities and restrictions that must be fulfilled before any property can be attached. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the guidelines issued by the CBIC through Circular No. 359 are binding and that any action taken by an officer not properly designated under Section 83 would be void ab initio. The petitioner relied on the principles that statutory provisions and binding circulars must be adhered to. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative and efficacious remedy available by filing objections under Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.