Page 90 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

456 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
5. Issue notice.
6. Mr. Harpreet Singh, Learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents.
7. Having heard the Learned Counsel for parties, this Court is of the
view that Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 is
squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The Rule 159(5) of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 reads as under :-
“159. Provisional attachment of property. -
xxx xxx xxx
(5) Any person whose property is attached may, within seven days of the
attachment under sub-rule (1), file an objection to the effect that the proper-
ty attached was or is not liable to attachment, and the Commissioner may,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the person filing the objec-
tion, release the said property by an order in FORM GST DRC-23.”
8. A Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat in Pranit Hem Desai v.
Additional Director General, C/SCA/7321/2019, dated 12th April, 2019 has held as
under :-
“1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders of at-
tachment of the bank accounts of the petitioners. A perusal of the notices
dated 4-4-2019 issued by the Deputy Director, DGGI, AZU, it is evident that
while attaching the bank accounts in exercise of powers under section 83 of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the said authority has
brought to the notice of the petitioners, the provisions of sub-rule (5) of
Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 to the effect that
it is open for the petitioners to C/SCA/7321/2019 ORDER file objection to
the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment, with-
in seven days of attachment under sub-rule (1) of Rule 159 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 before the competent authority.
2. Mr. D.K. Trivedi, Learned Advocate for the petitioners has invited the
attention of the court to the order dated 3-4-2019 in Form GST DRC-22 un-
der rule 159(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, to point
out that in terms of the said order, proceedings have been launched against
the petitioners under Section 74 of the CGST Act. It was submitted that no
proceeding under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been initiated against the
petitioners till date, and hence, the action under section 83 of the CGST Act,
2017 is without authority of law.
3. In the opinion of this court, when the communications dated 4-4-2019 of
the Deputy Director, DGGI, AZU itself informs the petitioners that the peti-
tioners have a remedy against the order of attachment by way of filing ob-
jection under sub-rule (5) of rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Rules, 2017, this court would be reluctant to entertain these petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the fact that the petition-
ers have an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent authority
before whom all the contentions raised in the present petitions can be
raised. This court is, therefore, not inclined to entertain these petitions.
4. In the above view of the matter, the petitions are dismissed as not enter-
tained in the light of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy
under sub-rule (5) of rule C/SCA/7321/2019 ORDER 159 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.
5. In terms of the communication dated 4-4-2019 of the Deputy Director,
DGGI, AZU, the petitioners are required to file objections within seven
days of attachment. Therefore, the petitioners were required to file the ob-
jections by 11th April, 2019. However, considering the fact that the petition-
ers were diligently prosecuting the proceedings before this court under Ar-
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  90