SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1337

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
M/s Vikas Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Tax (Gst), Delhi North & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9495 of 2023 & CM Appl. 36293 of 2023
Decided On : 31-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Mr. Bhuvensh Satija & Mr. Udit Sharma, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Mr. Gautam Barwal, Advocate, for the Respondent.

The power under Section 83 of the CGST Act can only be exercised subject to specified conditions and by the Commissioner, and not by any other officer.

Headnote:

Freezing of Bank Account - Central Goods and Services Tax Act - The court set aside the impugned communication directing the bank to freeze the petitioner's bank account, emphasizing that the power under Section 83 of the CGST Act can only be exercised subject to specified conditions and by the Commissioner, and not by any other officer.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged a communication from respondent no.2 directing the bank to freeze the petitioner's bank account, citing lack of statutory provision under the CGST Act empowering respondent no.2 to issue such a communication.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned communication to the extent that it sought to place a debit freeze on the petitioner's account, emphasizing that the respondents disregarded statutory provisions and imposed a cost of Rs.5,000 on respondent no.2.

Issues: Lack of statutory provision empowering respondent no.2 to freeze the bank account, failure to consider the petitioner's objections, and the absence of an order from the Commissioner under Section 83 of the CGST Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 83 of the CGST Act can only be exercised subject to specified conditions and by the Commissioner, and not by any other officer.

Final Decision: The impugned communication directing the bank to freeze the petitioner's bank account was set aside, and a cost of Rs.5,000 was imposed on respondent no.2.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning a communication dated 25.03.2022 (hereafter `the impugned communication'), issued by respondent no.2 [Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) Group 1] to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Indraparstha Building, Vikas Marg, Lakshmi Nagar, Delhi, calling upon the bank to furnish certain documents pertaining to the petitioner. The said impugned communication further directed the bank not to permit any debit from the petitioner's bank account (Account No.39617476186) maintained with the said bank without prior permission of the Department.

2. The present petition was listed on 19.07.2023. The learned counsel for the respondents had accepted notice and sought time to take instructions in regard to the statutory provision under which respondent no.2 had issued the impugned communication.

3. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents is unable to point out any provision under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Act') permitting respondent no.2 to issue such a communication directing the Bank to freeze the bank account. He has referred to the provision of Section 83 of the CGST Act, which empowers the Commissioner to issue an order for provisional attachment of assets including bank accounts. However, an order of provisional attachment of assets under Section 83 of the CGST Act can be issued only if the Commissioner is of the view that it is necessary to protect the interest of the Revenue. However, admittedly, in the present case, the Commissioner has not issued any such order.

4. It is well settled that the orders of provisional attachment of bank accounts or other assets of a tax payer has a serious adverse effect on the business of the tax payer. In Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2021) 6 SCC 771, the Supreme Court made observations to the effect that such drastic powers must be exercised only where it is necessary. Considering that the wide adverse ramifications such orders have, this Court, has in a number of decisions, held that the power under Section 83 of the CGST Act can be exercised only subject to the conditions, as specified therein, being fully satisfied. No order under Section 83 of the CGST Act can be passed by any officer other than the Commissioner and this can be done only if he is satisfied that it is necessary to pass such an order for protecting the interest of Revenue.

5. In the present case, respondent no.2 has, by a letter addressed to the bank seeking information, also directed freezing the petitioner's bank account. The impugned communication is without authority of law. It has been issued in complete disregard of the provisions of the CGST Act and the adverse effect of such orders.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the bank account freezed by respondent no.2 is a cash credit account, therefore, the petitioner was unable to effectively operate the same.

7. The petitioner had filed his objection in terms of the Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Rules') assuming that the impugned communication was passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act. However, the said objections were not considered and admittedly, the respondents did not furnish any response to the said application.

8. Mr. Ojha submits that the order freezing the petitioner's bank account would cease to be operative since a period of one year has since elapsed. The said contention is premised on the basis that the impugned communication is an order, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, however, no such order was passed by the Commissioner. It is conceded that the order in Form DRC-22 has not been issued. The impugned communication has emanated from respondent no.2 and not by the Commissioner exercising jurisdiction in respect of the tax payer. The impugned communication also does not indicate that it was issued with the authority

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top