Page 58 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

16 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
[Order per : S. Muralidhar, J.]. - This is a batch of five petitions, by the
companies belonging to the same group. The first of these petitions i.e. CWP No.
4144 of 2020 is filed by M/s. Ireo Hospitality Company Private Limited
(‘IHCPL’) where the principal challenge is to the provisional attachment order
dated 7th February, 2020 issued by the Principal Commissioner, CGST Commis-
sionerate, Gurugram attaching the bank accounts of the Petitioner.
2. When CWP No. 4144 of 2020 was listed for hearing before this Court
on 14th February, 2020, notice of motion was issued and the petition was ad-
journed to 18th February, 2020 at the request of Learned Standing Counsel for
the Respondents.
3. On the following date i.e. 18th February, 2020 while further adjourn-
ing the case to 25th February, 2020 again at the request of Learned Counsel for
the Respondents, the Court directed that in the meanwhile the Over Draft (OD)
account(s) of the Petitioner shall be de-freezed forthwith.
4. On the next date i.e. on 25th February, 2020 the following order was
passed in CWP No. 4144 of 2020.
“By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of attachment of its
bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 [read with Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST)
Rules, 2017].
Reply on behalf of respondents has been filed and the same is taken
on record. Copy of reply is handed over to Learned Counsel for the Peti-
tioners.
The principal argument is that the necessary concomitant for exercis-
ing the powers under Section 83 of the Act is ‘opinion of the Commissioner
that it is necessary for protecting the interest of the Government revenue’.
On the other hand, the impugned order only mentions that since proceed-
ings have been launched against the petitioner under Section 67 of the Act,
the order has been passed.
We have asked Learned Counsel for the respondents as to what were
the reasons for coming to the opinion that the interest of the revenue may
be prejudicially affected when there is no demand, because even in the
written statement nothing is forthcoming.
Learned Counsel has requested us to permit the officer who has
passed the order to appear before this Court with the record and explain
the reasons which weighed with him. Even though the request is hardly
reasonable, we accede to it.
Adjourned to 27-2-2020.
Copy of the order be handed over to Learned Counsel for the Revenue
under the signatures of Bench Secretary of this Court.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case.”
5. In the meanwhile, companion petitions had been filed and the above
order was common to the first petition i.e. CWP No. 4144 of 2020 and the other
four petitions by the other group companies viz., Ireo Victory Valley Private
Limited (CWP No. 4506 of 2020), Ireo Grace Realtech Private Limited (CWP No.
4507 of 2020), Ireo Residences Company Private Limited (CWP No. 4512 of 2020)
and Ireo Private Limited (CWP No. 4513 of 2020). The challenge in those peti-
tions inter alia was to the attachment of bank accounts of the concerned entities.
6. Thereafter, the petitions were again considered, after completion of

GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  58