GST Update
Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 1027 Series (CAPS)
Gauhati High Court In the case of Shri Petro Chemical Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India
Facts of the Case
GST authorities provisionally attached the company's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 during pending proceedings. The company challenged the attachment before the Gauhati High Court.
Key Issue
Whether the Commissioner had validly formed the mandatory opinion required under Section 83 before freezing the bank account.
Scope of Section 83
The Court observed that provisional attachment is a drastic and extraordinary power. It can be exercised only when necessary to protect Government revenue.
Opinion Must Be Based on Evidence
The Commissioner's opinion must be supported by relevant material and facts. Mere suspicion or routine action is not sufficient.
Application of Mind is Essential
The authority must independently examine the facts and record satisfaction. Mechanical approval or absence of proper reasoning is not permissible.
Attachment of Bank Account Has Serious Consequences
Freezing a bank account adversely affects business operations, payments, and working capital. Therefore, such power must be exercised cautiously.
Department Failed to Justify Attachment
The Department could not produce any concrete material showing that the taxpayer was likely to evade tax recovery or defeat the proceedings. Mere pendency of investigation or proceedings was held to be insufficient.
Court's Finding
The Court held that the mandatory requirement of forming a proper opinion under Section 83 had not been satisfied. Consequently, the provisional attachment order was legally unsustainable.
Final Verdict
The Gauhati High Court quashed the provisional attachment order and directed the release of the bank account. The Court reiterated that the power under Section 83 cannot be exercised mechanically and must be supported by cogent reasons, relevant material, and due application of mind.
LINK:CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin
Regards
CAPS
0 Comments: