Where properties in respect of which the prohibition order had been passed were not found at the premises which came to be searched. Under the circumstances, the attachment of property appeared to be beyond the scope of the powers of the concerned Officer under sub section (2) of section 67.

Where properties in respect of which the prohibition order had been passed were not found at the premises which came to be searched. Under the circumstances, the attachment of property appeared to be beyond the scope of the powers of the concerned Officer under sub section (2) of section 67.

Goods & Services Tax
ENPROCON ENTERPRISE LTD. vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX-(GST HC Cases)

Assessee Appeal — By this petition assessee challenged provisionally attaching the three bank accounts of assessee — Held, it was evident that the properties in respect of which the prohibition order had been passed were not found at the premises which came to be searched — Under the circumstances, the attachment of property appeared to be beyond the scope of the powers of the concerned Officer under sub section (2) of section 67 — Appeal Allowed.

1. Mr. Ravish Bhatt learned Advocate for the petitioner has inter alia invited the attention of the court to the order of prohibition dated 30.7.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax under rule 139(4) of the Gujarat Goods and Service Tax, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'GGST Act, 2017') to submit that such order is beyond the scope of the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 67 of the GGST Act, 2017.


2. It is further submitted that the respondents have exercised powers of provisional attachment of property under section 83 of the GGST Act whereby, the three bank accounts of the petitioner maintained with the Central Bank of India, H.L. Commerce College Branch, Ahmedabad, ICICI Bank, Naranpura Branch, Ahmedabad and Vijaya Bank, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad have been attached.


3. It was submitted that apart from the attachment of the bank accounts, the respondents have also provisionally attached the office premises of the petitioner being B-705, Mondeal Heights. It was submitted that the immovable property which has been attached by the respondents is worth more than a crore rupees, which is more than the amount estimated by the respondents, which may become due and payable in case an assessment order is passed against the petitioner. It was submitted that therefore, there is no justification for attaching the bank accounts over and above the attachment of the office premises when the liability that may arise is already protected by the attachment over the office premises.


4. This court has also heard Ms. Maithili Mehta learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents.


5. On a perusal of the order dated 30.7.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Unit 22, Ahmedabad under rule 139(4) of the GGST Rules, pursuant to the search of the premises of the petitioner under sub-section (2) of section 67 of the GGST Act, 2017, it is evident that the properties in respect of which the prohibition order has been passed were not found at the premises which came to be searched.


6. Under the circumstances, the attachment of such property appears to be beyond the scope of the powers of the concerned Officer under sub- section (2) of section 67 of the Act.


7. In the aforesaid premises, issue rule, returnable on 10.10.2019. Ms. Maithili Mehta learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Nirzar Desai learned Senior Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.3.


8. In the meanwhile by way of interim relief, the order dated 30.7.2019 issued under rule 139(4) of the GGST Rules as well as the attachment of the above-referred three bank accounts of the petitioner under section 83 of the GGST Act, 2017, are hereby stayed.


9. Direct service is permitted, today.



(HARSHA DEVANI, J)


(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)

Ask a Question Create a Ripple(News)