M/S Ssb Industries, Village Saidhpur, Sonipat Through Its Proprietor Aakash vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, M/s SSB Industries, has challenged the provisional attachment of its three current accounts. This attachment was ordered by the respondents under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, via an order dated 11.06.2024. The petitioner acknowledges that it has submitted objections and a representation to the respondents concerning this attachment, which remain pending. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh was approached by the petitioner through a Civil Writ Petition No. 15738 of 2024. The respondents were represented by their Senior Standing Counsel.

Held

The Court declined to interfere with the matter on its merits at this stage. It acknowledged that the petitioner had filed objections and a representation against the provisional attachment order dated 11.06.2024, and these were pending. The Court directed respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner's representation and objection within a maximum of 10 working days. This decision must be a speaking order, meaning it should provide reasons for the conclusion reached. The outcome of this decision is to be communicated to the petitioner. The Court's reasoning was that it would be appropriate for the concerned authorities to first address the petitioner's grievances as raised before entering into the merits of the case. No specific finding was made on the validity of the attachment itself, as the matter was disposed of with a direction for expeditious decision by the respondent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, is valid and justified, considering the pending objections and representations filed by the petitioner? The petitioner argued that its objections and representations against the provisional attachment order dated 11.06.2024 are still pending consideration by the respondents. The petitioner's grievance is that the authorities have not yet decided on these submissions, leading to the continued attachment of its accounts. The respondents, represented by their Senior Standing Counsel, did not present any specific arguments regarding the merits of the attachment in the High Court. However, their presence indicated their engagement with the matter before the court.