BHARAT PARIHAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges provisional attachment of bank account of the Petitioner with Yes Bank, Mumbai, under Sec. 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 and further communication dtd. 19/4/2023, whereby the provisional attachment made on 21/4/2022 is retained under Sec. 83 of the CGST Act. The petition is filed after the objections of the Petitioner to provisional attachment were disposed of under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules by the Respondents.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

(3.) At the outset, the Respondents have raised a preliminary ground that the order disposing off objections under Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules attaching the bank account provisionally is an appealable order and, therefore, this Court should not entertain the petition. The Respondents have relied on Sec. 107 of the Act in support of the contention that the same is an appealable order. On the other hand, the Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh ,(2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 771.wherein an identical submission was made before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in paragraphs 63 to 66 have held that order disposing the objections to provisional attachment of bank account is not an appealable order and the only remedy that is available is in the form of the invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Respondents cannot take a position contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, the objection as to alternative remedy being no more res integra and concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra), the present writ petition needs to be entertained. We now propose to deal with the provisions relating to attachment under Sec. 83 of the CGST Act.