Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Ray Tele Service, challenged the attachment of its bank account dated 1st August, 2023 by the CGST authority (Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise, Durgapur Audit Commissionerate). The petitioner had made a representation before the Assistant Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Durgapur, GST Division-II on 7th August, 2023, seeking lifting of the attachment, which had remained undecided.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner's pending representation seeking lifting of the bank account attachment should be considered and decided by the appropriate authority.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The bank account attachment dated 1st August, 2023 caused the petitioner grievance, and a representation seeking its lifting had been made on 7th August, 2023 but remained undecided.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Superintendent, CGST, Range-3, Durgapur-II (respondent no. 4) was the appropriate authority to consider the petitioner's grievance regarding the bank account attachment.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court directed respondent no. 4 to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 7th August, 2023 and take a decision on lifting the bank attachment, by a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or its authorised representative, within two weeks from communication of the order.
  • Since the petition was disposed of without calling for affidavits, the allegations in the writ petition were deemed to be denied by the respondents.

Important Clarification

Where a taxpayer's representation seeking lifting of a bank account attachment made under the CGST Act remains undecided, courts will direct the appropriate jurisdictional officer to decide it through a reasoned, speaking order after hearing, within a short fixed timeline, rather than examining the validity of the attachment itself in writ proceedings.

Sections Involved

  • Section 83, Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – empowers provisional attachment of property, including bank accounts, to protect revenue during pendency of certain proceedings.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for time-bound consideration of the representation — a procedural outcome favouring the Assessee, pending the authority's substantive decision.

Case Details

Court: High Court at Calcutta
Case No.: WPA 20053 of 2023
Coram: Hon'ble Md. Nizamuddin, J.
Date of Order: 24.08.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

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.