JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of the first respondent in Form GST DRC-22 issued in F.No./INT/DGGI/CZU/GST/66/2020/8185 dated 23.11.2020 addressed to the third respondent and quash the same in so far as against the petitioner is concerned as issued contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.)

1. The petitioner is an assessee under the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short “CGST Act/Act”) and challenges proceedings dated 23.11.2020 issued by the first respondent attaching the petitioner’s bank accounts in terms of Section 83 of CGST Act, based upon proceedings for search and seizure launched as against the petitioner in terms of Section 67 of the Act.

2. Heard Mr.P.Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the official respondents i.e., The Principal Additional Director General of GST Intelligence/R1 & The Senior Intelligence Officer/R2. Though notice has been issued to the Branch Manager, Indian Bank/R3, there was no appearance for the Bank.

3. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the impugned attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act is without any statutory sanction as it is consequent upon action under Section 67 of the Act, which deals with the power of the authorities to engage in inspection, search and seizure. The scope of Section 87 is wholly based upon the “opinion” of the concerned Commissioner to the effect that the interests of the revenue were to be safeguarded and sanctioning coercive recovery proceedings of the nature of bank attachment in a particular case.

4. The Head Office of the petitioner was subject to proceedings for inspection, search and seizure by R2 and other officials of the Intelligence Wing on 09.01.2020. A Mahazar was drawn and various materials including files and a pendrive, seized. With this, proceedings under Section 67 have been, according to the petitioner, concluded. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by the respondents. Section 67 provides exhaustively for the procedure to be engaged in and carried out by officials of GST Intelligence to search the premises of the taxable person in the event of apprehension that there has been suppression of transactions relating to supply of goods or services or both, or stock of goods in hand or excess claim of Input Tax Credit (UTC) or indulgence in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or Rules with the intention of evading tax under the Act.

5. The allegations as against the petitioner relate to excess claim of ITC. I refrain from referring to the facts any further as it is not material to decide the legal question arising for resolution of this Court. Suffice it to say that the revenue was of the view that the petitioner’s claim for ITC was fraudulent as it had, for the purpose of inflating its entitlement to ITC, projected as though it had engaged in business dealings with non-existent, bogus companies.

6. Section 83 provides for the provisional attachment of any property including bank accounts belonging to the taxable person with the avowed object of protecting the revenue, in certain cases. Section 83 reads as follows:

83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases.-

(1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a