Page 59 - GSTL_7th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 1

2020 ] IREO HOSPITALITY COMPANY PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 17
the pleadings, on 3rd March, 2020 when the following order was passed by this
Court :-
“Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has filed rejoinder to the reply of
the respondents and the same is taken on record. Copy of rejoinder is sup-
plied to Learned Counsel for the respondents.
Today, Mr. Vivek Ranjan, I.R.S., Director General of GST Intelligence,
Gurugram is present in the Court and has apprised the Court that the order
which has been passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services
Tax Act, 2017 read with Rule 159(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax
(CGST) Rules, 2017 and in consonance with Form GST-DRC-22 and as per
that form, there is no requirement for recording the reasons.
In our opinion, this argument may not stand the scrutiny of law be-
cause the enabling section is section 83 which requires that ‘Commissioner
is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting interest of the Govern-
ment revenue………’ .
To our mind, tentatively the sine qua non for the Commissioner to ar-
rive at ‘opinion’ would be material and once Rule 159(5) permits the affect-
ed person to file objections, it would normally go without saying that he
would know the reasons because if he does not know the reasons, he does
not what objections to file.
Adjourned to 17-3-2020 for further consideration.
While recording our appreciation for appearance of the Officer, we
declare that he need not be present on next date.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected
case.”
7. Further submissions were heard by this Court on 17th March, 2020
when it was urged by Mr. Balbir Singh, Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
that as long as the Petitioners’ principal grievance that the provisional attach-
ment orders were non-reasoned orders is entertained and a time bound direction
is issued to the respondent to pass those orders afresh in accordance with law
taking into account the submissions of the Petitioners in these petitions, the peti-
tioners were willing to abide by any terms and conditions as may be deemed ap-
propriate by the Court.
8. Mr. Singh, inter alia, stated on instructions that an affidavit would be
filed by the petitioners setting out what the balance in the frozen accounts was,
as on date, and also set out the proposed withdrawals to be made from those ac-
counts in the event of lifting of freezing orders by the Respondents till 10th April,
2020, the tentative date by which it was proposed that fresh orders would be
passed by the Respondents.
9. Today, Mr. Balbir Singh, Senior Advocate has handed over an affi-
davit dated 17th March, 2020 of the Petitioners setting out in a tabulated form the
payments that were required to be made by the Petitioners as “essential business
payments” up to 10th April, 2020 from the provisionally attached accounts for
running their day-to-day operations and for “no other purpose”. The proposed
payments have been depicted as under :-

S. Particulars Approximate Expense
No.
a. Payment to Government and Local Authorities for Rs. 8.75 Crore
statutory dues and utility charges;
GST LAW TIMES  7th May 2020  59