1 911. WP 167.20.doc JPP IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 167 OF 2020 M/s. Gehna Trading LLP Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Brijesh Pathak for Petitioner Mr. J.B. Mishra for Respondents. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR & M.S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 30 JANUARY 2020. P.C. :- By this Petition Petitioner has challenged action of Respondents in provisionally attaching bank account of Petitioner. 2. On 6 December 2019 Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax (CGST) informed Branch Manager where Petitioner holds bank account that in view of proceedings filed against one Yusuf Fauzdar Shaikh, proprietor 2 911. WP 167.20.doc of M/s. Fashion Creations, proceedings have been launched against said taxable person and Respondents were of belief that amounts were being transferred to various persons, including Petitioner. Hence, direction was issued to bank not to allow any debit. 3. Though order does not refer to any provision of law, learned Counsel for Petitioner points out that power for provisionally attaching bank account is under Section 83 of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017. learned Counsel for Petitioner submitted that there are no proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 against Petitioner as mentioned under Section 83 of CGST Act, which is necessary if attachment under Section 83 is to be levied. learned Counsel for Petitioner relies upon decision of this Court dated 17 January 2020 in Writ Petition No. 3145 of 2019 (Kaish Impex Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Union of India & Ors. ) wherein this Court has observed thus :- 13. Primary defence of Respondents is that even if section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 mentioned in section 83 of Act are not referable to case of Petitioner, since summons is issued to Petitioner in pursuant to inquiry initiated against M/s.Maps Global under section 67 of Act, by issuance of summons proceedings get extended to Petitioner also. 3 911. WP 167.20.doc 14. analysis of section 83 of Act will show that such interpretation is not permissible and not contemplated by legislature. Section 83 read with Rule 159(1), and form GST DRC-22, lay down scheme as to how provisional attachment in certain cases is to be levied. Section 83 though uses phrase pendency of any proceedings , proceedings are referable to section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of Act and none other. bank account of taxable person can be attached against whom proceedings under sections mentioned above are initiated. Section 83 does not provide for automatic extension to any other taxable person from inquiry specifically launched against taxable person under these provisions. Section 83 read with section 159(2), and form GST DRC-22 show that proceeding has to be initiated against specific taxable person, opinion has to be formed that to protect interest of Revenue order of provisional attachment is necessary. format of order, i.e. form GST DRC-22 also specifies particulars of registered taxable person and which proceedings have been launched against aforesaid taxable person indicating nexus between proceedings to be initiated against taxable person and provisional attachment of bank account of such taxable person. 15. Power to provisionally attach bank accounts is drastic power. Considering consequences that ensue from provisional attachment of bank accounts, Courts have repeatedly emphasized that this power is not to be routinely exercised. Under Section 83, legislature has no doubt conferred power on authorities to provisionally attach bank accounts to safeguard government revenue, but same is within well-defined ambit. Only upon contingencies provided therein that power under section 83 can be 4 911. WP 167.20.doc exercised. This power is to be used in only limited circumstances and it is not omnibus power. 16. It is therefore not possible to accept submission of Respondents that even though specified proceedings have been launched against one taxable person, bank account of another taxable person can be provisionally attached merely based on summons issued under section 70 to him. facts of present case are identical to that of case of Kaish Impex Pvt. Ltd. 4. Petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly Writ Petition is allowed. order passed by Respondent dated 6 December 2019 attaching bank account of Petitioner, details of which have been given in Petition is quashed and set aside. M.S. KARNIK, J. NITIN JAMDAR, J. Digitally signed Jyoti P. by Jyoti P. Pawar Date: Pawar 2020.02.04 11:24:24 +0530 Gehna Trading LLP v. Union of India and Or