Page 84 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

594 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
they are maintaining with Lakshmi Vilas Bank, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Peti-
tioner in terms of Rule 159 of CGST Rules, 2017 made a representation to the Re-
spondent, who vide communication dated 23-10-2019 declined to accede request
of the Petitioner to lift attachment of bank account. Hence the instant petition is
filed.
3. Mr. Bansal, counsel for the Petitioner contended that account in
question is an OCC Account and Petitioner till date had utilized credit limit to
the tune of Rs. 6.42 Crore, thus there is debit balance in the account and its at-
tachment amounts to closure of business because in the present era it is not pos-
sible to carry on business activities without bank account. Section 83 of CGST Act
read with Rule 159 of CGST Rules, 2017 permits attachment to protect interest of
revenue and not to close business of any entity. As there is debit balance in the
account, thus there is no question of protection/securing interest of revenue. The
Petitioner during GST regime has availed ITC amounting to Rs. 60.89 Crore and
paid GST amounting to Rs. 62.45 Crore. The Petitioner is a running unit and
more than 100 families are dependent upon the unit and its closure would de-
prive a source of livelihood to these families. Till date, no show cause notice has
been issued under Section 73 or 74 of the CGST Act, thus any demand prior to
show cause notice and its adjudication is bad and beyond the jurisdiction of Re-
spondent.
4. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Counsel for the Respondent contended that the
Petitioner has not actually purchased inputs from 16 suppliers and these suppli-
ers are not traceable, thus Petitioner is liable to pay ITC amounting to Rs. 13.38
Crore, which has been wrongly availed. As per investigation, the scrap batteries
have been purchased from unorganized/unregistered persons backed with fake
invoices and bogus transport details. The bank account has been attached only to
safeguard the interest of Government revenue and contention of Petitioner that
attachment of account amounts to closure of business is untenable. Once the Leg-
islature has provided for attachment of bank account, the same cannot be called
to be in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
5. The only grievance of Petitioner is that their OCC account has been
attached which amounts to closure of their business. We are not adverting with
other prayers of the Petitioner and confine our findings to attachment of OCC
account.
6. The conceded position as emerging from the record is that the Peti-
tioner is a running manufacturing unit and account in question is a OCC account
having debit balance of Rs. 6.42 Crore. The investigation is going on and show
cause notice under Section 73 or 74 would be issued after its completion. The Re-
spondent in exercise of power under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 has attached
bank account to safeguard interest of revenue.
7. After having scrutinized record of the case and hearing arguments of
Counsel of both sides, we find that Respondent has power to attach property and
bank account of any taxable person to protect interest of revenue. Person ag-
grieved may make representation against attachment of property or bank ac-
count and Commissioner after affording opportunity of hearing is bound to de-
cide representation in one or another way. Section 83 of CGST Act and Rule 159
of CGST Rules are reproduced as under :
SECTION 83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases.
- (1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under Section 62 or Sec-
tion 63 or Section 64 or Section 67 or Section 73 or Section 74, the Commis-
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  180