Prop. Kailashchandra Chechani, Prop. M/S Eakling Trading Company vs. Principle Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax Commissionerate

Facts

The petitioner, Prop. Kailashchandra Chechani, proprietor of M/s Eakling Trading Company, filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court challenging communications and orders dated 07.09.2020 and 17.09.2020. The petitioner also sought to quash any orders passed under Section 83 read with Rule 159 in Form GST DRC-22, and crucially, sought directions to lift the attachment on several bank accounts. The attachment was placed by the respondent authorities, including the Principal Chief Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate. The procedural history indicates that the court had previously heard both sides and noted the respondent's grievance regarding the petitioner's repeated non-attendance to summons, which was hampering proceedings.

Held

The Court noted that the learned senior Standing Counsel for the respondent, on instructions, agreed that in view of the provisions under the GCST Act, since the period of one year had been completed, a direction for lifting the attachment of the bank accounts would be communicated to the bank. The respondent's primary concern was the petitioner's repeated non-attendance to summons, which was hindering further proceedings. The petitioner's counsel assured that all possible cooperation would be extended and that the petitioner would attend the proceedings on the scheduled date. Consequently, the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition, and the respondent had no objection. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts, made under Section 83 read with Rule 159 of the CGST Act, should be lifted, considering the period of one year has elapsed since the attachment was initiated? The petitioner sought the quashing of impugned communications and orders, and the lifting of attachment on their bank accounts. The respondent, represented by learned senior Standing Counsel, agreed that in light of the provisions of the GCST Act, since a period of one year had been completed, a direction for lifting the attachment would be communicated to the bank. However, the respondent's grievance was the petitioner's repeated non-attendance to summons, which was impeding further proceedings. The petitioner's counsel, on instructions, submitted that full cooperation would be extended and the petitioner would attend the proceedings on a specified date.