JUDGMENT :

(Nisha M. Thakore, J.)

1. The petitioner herein is a proprietary firm trading in scrap of copper, brass, aluminum, plastic etc and having valid registration under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ( in short, “CGST Act, 2017”) . The petitioner (hereinafter referred as the ‘Firm’), has invoked extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has prayed for following reliefs.

2. The summary of the facts are reproduced as under :

2.1 On 16.06.2020, the respondent No. 2 had issued summons thereby calling upon the petitioner firm to furnish the sales bill of dealer ‘Nox Enterprise’ ( hereinafter referred as ‘dealer’). In response to the aforesaid notice, the petitioner firm had appeared before the respondent authority whereby his statement was recorded on 09.07.2020. On 23.07.2020, the petitioner firm submitted documents in the nature of purchase register and photocopies of invoices from Nox Enterprises.

2.2 On 23rd September, 2020, the proper officer had issued intimation Form GST DRC-01A under Section 74(5) of CGST Act, 2017 about the purchase transactions amounting to Rs. 2,83,77,650/- with Nox Enterprise was alleged to be entered without receiving physical goods and ITC of Rs. 43,28,793 was wrongly availed along with interest at the rate of 24% amounting to Rs. 21,55,507:00 and penalty at the rate of 15% amounting to Rs. 6,49,319:00 was taken into consideration. Thus, liability of an amount of Rs 21,55,507/- along with penalty at the rate of 15 per cent amounting to Rs. 6,49,319/- was imposed on the petitioner firm.

2.3 The petitioner firm was thereafter served with show cause notice in the Form GST DRC-01 dated 05.10.2020 under Section 50(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 thereby calling upon the petitioner firm as to why the aforesaid levy of interest and penalty may not be imposed upon the petitioner firm. In response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the petitioner firm had submitted the details in the nature of FORM GST DRC-06 on 06.10.2020.

2.4 It is the case of the petitioner firm that without considering the aforesaid submissions, the respondent authority on the same day i.e. 06.10.2020 without intimating the petitioner firm, had issued notice to the Manager of Union Bank of India in exercise of power conferred under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 thereby informing about the provisional attachment of the bank account bearing No. 369801010029171. It is further alleged that the respondent authority had also issued a provisional attachment order in respect of the business and the residential property of the petitioner firm by issuing notice dated 08.10.2020.

2.5 The petitioner firm had raised objection vide letter dated 16.10.2020, however, by non-speaking order in the FORM GST DRC-07, the respondent ones again raised demand of tax of Rs. 43,28,794/- with interest of an amount Rs. 23,03,516/- and penalty of Rs. 43,28,794 - thereby totaling to an amount of Rs. 1,09,61,104/-.

2.6 The petitioner had once again vide letter dated 20.01.2021 requested the respondent authority to release the bank attachment in order to facilitate the petitioner firm to approach appellate authority by filing appeal as the petitioner firm was under obligation to deposit 10 percent of the aforesaid tax amount as predeposit.

2.7 The respondent authority permitted the petitioner firm for withdrawal of the 10% amount from the provisionally attached bank account in order to enable the petitioner firm to pay 10 per cent of the predeposit amount of disputed tax to avail the remedy of appeal. The petitioner firm had approached the Appellant Authority by filing an appeal which was filed on 20.02.2021 and the same is pending consideration.

2.8 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner firm had made repeated requests for the restoration of the provisional attachment, however the respondent authorities have failed to act or respond to the same and hence the petit