Case Law Details
Dharmesh Gandhi Vs Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) (Bombay High Court)
After hearing the matter at some length, we find that out of the nine bank accounts that have been attached by respondent No.1, only the accounts at Sr. Nos.2, 3 and 4 belong to the petitioner whereas the other accounts belong to the family members, namely, Bharti H. Gandhi (mother), Pranjal D. Gandhi (wife) and Shaalin D. Gandhi (son).
In Siddhart Mandavia Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition (L) No.2901 of 2020, decided on 03.11.2020, this Court had examined a similar issue relating to attachment of bank account of not only the taxable person but also of his family members. In that context, this Court held that bank account of only the taxable person can be provisionally attached under section 83 of the CGST Act and therefore the provisional attachment of bank account of the family members was set aside. In so far bank account of the taxable person in Siddharth Mandavia (supra) was concerned, this Court took note of the provisions contained in sub rules (5) and (6) of Rule 159 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 and relegated the taxable person to the forum of the Commissioner to take a decision regarding release of the bank account of the taxable person provisionally attached.
Having regard to the above and on due consideration, we pass the following orders :-
I) The bank accounts at Sr. Nos.1 and 5 to 9 as per statement in paragraph 3 herein-above shall be released from provisional attachment forthwith.
II) In so far the bank accounts of the petitioner at Sr. Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the said statement are concerned, petitioner may file objection before the Commissioner i.e. respondent No.2 within a period of seven days from today.
III) If such objection is filed as above, respondent No.2 shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of objection.
IV) Since we have not examined or decided anything on merit, all contentions are kept open.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Heard Mr. Dharam Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. B. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of communication dated 09.11.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), CGST and Central Excise, Belapur Commissionerate i.e., respondent No.1 to the Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Fort Branch, Mumbai for provisional attachment of property under section 83 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly “the CGST Act” hereinafter).
3. Though a number of prayers have been made, principal grievance of the petitioner is the attachment of bank accounts not only of him but also of his family members pursuant to the impugned communication dated 09.11.2020 details of which are mentioned in paragraph 5.17. of the writ petition which are extracted hereunder :-
| Sr. No. | Account Name | Proprietor/Karta | Account No | Balance | Balance |
| 1 | Gurudada Trading Co |
