Lalitbhai Natvarlal Patel vs. Additional Director General Dggi, Azu

Held

The Court, in its interim order dated 6.2.2019, directed the respondent to release the attachment over the petitioner's bank accounts, subject to Shri Ashwinkumar Jayantibhai Patel and Shri Jashvantkumar Jayantibhai Patel permitting the attachment of their property as security. These individuals were also required to file an undertaking within one week. To secure the revenue's interest, the petitioner was directed to maintain an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- in their current account. Subsequently, on 10.04.2019, the Court noted that the bank accounts had been released from attachment in light of the interim order. Therefore, the grievance raised in the petition was resolved, and no further action was required. The petition was disposed of.

Facts

The petitioners, Lalitbhai Natvarlal Patel and another, filed a Special Civil Application seeking the removal of attachment of their bank accounts. The Additional Director General, DGGI, AZU, had attached these accounts, bearing numbers 916030011996489 (cash credit) and 916020018310340 (current), under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, via FORM GST DRC-22. The petitioners, in their rejoinder, offered property owned by Shri Ashwinkumar Jayantibhai Patel and Shri Jashvantkumar Jayantibhai Patel, the father and uncle of a company director, for attachment to secure government revenue. This property was valued at Rs. 2.75 crore and was stated to be unencumbered. The petitioners contended that the attachment hindered their company's day-to-day operations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts by the respondent authority under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, was justified, considering the offer of alternative security by third parties. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the attachment of their bank accounts was causing significant difficulties in managing the company's daily affairs. They contended that since the father and uncle of a director were willing to offer their unencumbered property, valued at Rs. 2.75 crore, as security, the attachment of the bank accounts should be released. They relied on the affidavits filed by these individuals offering their property for attachment. Revenue's Contention: The respondent revenue authority, represented by Mr. Ankit Shah, did not dispute the offer of alternative security. Instead, they suggested that if the court was inclined to release the bank accounts, the petitioner could be directed to maintain a specified amount in the said bank accounts as deemed fit by the court.