Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST UPDATE ON POWER OF ATTACHMENT TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY 123/2020-21

GST UPDATE ON POWER OF ATTACHMENT TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIOUSLY 123/2020-21

The justification for granting wide powers to tax authorities regarding attachment of property of the taxpayer under the GST law has been contentious since inception. In our past updates also, we have discussed important judgments on legality of attachment of bank accounts by the GST authorities. The update no. 104/2020-12 and update no. 89H/2020-21 may be referred to by our netizens. In the present update, we seek to discuss yet another important judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/S VALERIUS INDUSTRIES V/S UOI concerning provisional attachment of the stock of goods and bank account of the petitioner by State Tax Officer under section 83 of the GST Act, 2017.

The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that just because a search has been undertaken resulting in seizure of goods by itself may not be sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that it is necessary to pass an order of provisional attachment to protect the revenue. The power u/s 83 should neither be used as a tool to harass the assessee nor should it be used in a manner which may have an irreversible detrimental effect on the business of the assessee. The court also held that the following factors must be taken into consideration, firstly whether it is a revenue neutral situation; secondly, the statement of output liability or input credit, having regard to the amount paid by reversing the input tax credit, if the interest of the revenue is sufficiently secured- then the authority may not be justified to invoke its power u/s 83. It would be a big mistake on the part of the revenue authorities to understand that the reasons to believe necessary for the purpose of carrying out inspection, search and seizure under Section 67 of the Act, 2017 would be sufficient for the purpose of formation of the opinion that it is necessary to provisionally attach the goods or other articles for protecting the interest of the government revenue.

The government has armed tax officers with sweeping powers to conduct searches,surveys and to attach the assets in case of recovery. Search proceedings are seen as blunt instruments of law enforcement. The intention of the government is that they want to expand the tax base, but it must be ensured that the tax administration is handling powers in a judicious way. The hon’ble High Court also held that under CGST Act, 2017, the order of provisional attachment can be passed only by the Commissioner and so in the present case, the provisional attachment order passed by State Tax Office was without jurisdiction. It was held that the power of forming reasonable belief in order to provisionally attach the property of the taxpayer is subjective one and has been delegated to the Commissioner which cannot be further delegated by him to the subordinate officers.

In this context, reference may be made to the decision given by the Hon’ble Gujarat high courtin the case of M/s Kushal Ltd.wherein it has been held that to exercise the power of provisional attachment of the property of a taxable person, proceedings should be pending under the requisite provisionswhereas in the instantaneous case pursuant to search under section 67(2) of the CGST Act, no inquiry or other proceedings under GST law was initiated.Thus,when the basic requirement for exercise of powers under section 83 was not satisfied, the provisional attachment of the bank account of the petitioners is not in consonance with the provisions and thus cannot be sustained and the High Court quashed the order of provisional attachment of the bank account of the petitioners.However, in the present decision, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that mere initiation of proceedings or pendency of proceedings under section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 per se would not lead to provisional attachment of the property of the taxpayer. Hence, this decision is one step forward to the decision given in case of M/s Kushal Ltd.

The High Courts act as a watchdog for applying the relevant provisions of the laws,specially the provisions which have adverse effect on the assessee such as provisional attachment of the property of the taxpayer. Although there are sufficient judicial guidelines against arbitrary exercise of such powers,taxpayers expect that the tax administration exercises due diligence to ensure that these powers are not abused.

This is solely for educational purpose.

You can reach us at www.capradeepjain.com , at our facebook page on https://www.facebook.com/GSTTODAYBYPRADEEPJAIN/ as well as follow us on twitter at https://www.twitter.com/@capradeepjain21and u may also follow us on Linkedinhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16

 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com