H M S Pipe Industries vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Facts

The petitioner, HMS Pipe Industries, is challenging an attachment order dated 05.06.2026 and the subsequent attachment of its bank account. This action was purportedly taken under Section 83 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the prescribed procedure was not followed before these actions were initiated. The matter was adjourned to allow the revenue to obtain instructions. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, has now stated that the authorities may be permitted to revisit the matter and has undertaken to withdraw the attachment of the petitioner's bank account within one week.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition in view of the fair stand taken by the respondents. The Court directed that the authorities shall act in terms of the undertaking given to the Court within the stipulated period of one week for withdrawing the attachment of the petitioner's bank account. Liberty was expressly reserved to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law, implying that the revenue can initiate fresh proceedings if legally permissible. The Court did not make a definitive finding on the procedural irregularity alleged by the petitioner, but rather facilitated a resolution based on the revenue's undertaking and its request to revisit the matter. The ratio decidendi is that when the revenue undertakes to rectify an action or re-examine a case, and the petitioner accepts this, the High Court may dispose of the matter on that basis, reserving liberty for the revenue to act lawfully.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attachment order dated 05.06.2026 and the attachment of the petitioner's bank account were effected in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 83 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argues that the procedure stipulated for effecting attachment under Section 83 of the Punjab Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was not followed. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, has stated that the authorities may be permitted to revisit the matter and has undertaken to withdraw the attachment of the petitioner's bank account within one week. The revenue did not explicitly address the procedural irregularity alleged by the petitioner but sought permission to re-examine the case and offered a concession regarding the bank account attachment.