Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Sidhivinayak Chemtech Private Limited, approached the Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 16084/2022 against the Principal Commissioner, CGST, Meerut and other respondents. The petitioner’s grievance was that it had filed objections in the prescribed Form GST DRC-22A against the impugned provisional attachment order dated 01.09.2022, but those objections had not yet been decided by the concerned authority.

During the proceedings, the respondents stated that notices for personal hearing had been issued on 28.09.2022 and that the petitioner’s authorized representative did not attend the hearing fixed for 04.10.2022. The petitioner, through counsel, disputed this position and maintained that no such notice had been received.

To resolve the controversy without prolonging the proceedings, counsel for both sides agreed that the petitioner’s authorized representative could be directed to appear before the concerned authority on a specified date and time.

Issues Involved

The principal issues arising before the Court were:

  1. Whether the petitioner’s objections filed in Form GST DRC-22A against the provisional attachment order dated 01.09.2022 should be heard and decided by the concerned statutory authority.
  2. Whether an effective opportunity of personal hearing should be provided where the respondents asserted that hearing notice had been issued, while the petitioner maintained that no such notice had been received.
  3. Whether the statutory authority should be directed to pass a speaking order on the objections raised by the petitioner.
  4. Whether the petitioner should retain liberty to challenge any adverse order in accordance with law.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner contended that despite filing objections in the prescribed Form GST DRC-22A against the provisional attachment order dated 01.09.2022, the objections remained undecided.

The petitioner further disputed the respondents’ assertion regarding the earlier opportunity of personal hearing. Counsel appearing for the petitioner specifically maintained that the alleged notice fixing the personal hearing had not been received by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner sought intervention so that its objections could be duly considered by the competent statutory authority.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents submitted that notices for personal hearing had been issued on 28.09.2022. According to the respondents, despite issuance of such notices, the petitioner’s authorized representative did not attend the hearing.

The respondents further stated that the date fixed for personal hearing was 04.10.2022. However, in view of the directions proposed by the Court and the agreed course for resolving the controversy, learned senior standing counsel stated that a counter-affidavit need not be filed.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petition by issuing the following directions:

  1. The petitioner’s authorized representative was directed to appear before the concerned statutory authority on 25.11.2022 at 11:00 a.m.
  2. The concerned statutory authority was directed to hear the authorized representative of the petitioner.
  3. After granting the hearing, the authority was directed to pass a speaking order concerning the objections raised by the petitioner.
  4. A copy of the order passed by the statutory authority was required to be furnished to the petitioner within two days of the order being passed.
  5. The Court expressly clarified that if the statutory authority passed an order adverse to the petitioner’s interest, the petitioner would have liberty to assail the same in accordance with law.
  6. The Registry was directed to scan and upload the papers handed over in Court by the respondents’ counsel so that they formed part of the case file.
  7. The pending application, CM Appl. 50203/2022, was closed, and the parties were permitted to act on the basis of the digitally signed copy of the order.

Important Clarification

The Court did not adjudicate the merits or legality of the provisional attachment itself. The order was procedural in nature and was aimed at ensuring that the petitioner’s objections were heard and decided through a speaking order.

The judgment is particularly important for the proposition that where objections against provisional attachment remain pending and there is a dispute regarding service or receipt of a personal hearing notice, the controversy may be resolved by providing a definite opportunity of hearing and requiring the statutory authority to decide the objections by a reasoned order.

The Court also preserved the petitioner’s statutory and legal remedies by expressly granting liberty to challenge any adverse order in accordance with law.

Section / Legal Provisions Involved

Form GST DRC-22A – Objections against provisional attachment.

Provisional Attachment under the CGST framework – The controversy arose from a provisional attachment order dated 01.09.2022. For precision, the Delhi High Court’s order does not expressly mention a specific statutory section number in its substantive discussion; therefore, no section number should be attributed to the Court beyond what the order itself records.

Principles of Natural Justice – Opportunity of personal hearing and reasoned consideration of objections.

Speaking Order Requirement – The concerned statutory authority was specifically directed to pass a speaking order concerning the petitioner’s objections.

Link to download the order -https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783153705_860compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.