Roshni Sana Jaiswal Vs Commissioner of Central Taxes (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner was acting as a director on the Board of Directors of a company, between 2006 and 2008 and the department initiated investigation against that that company alleging that the company was availing Input Tax Credit against fake/ineligible invoices. The petitioner was also a shareholder in the company, and owned approximately 14.33% equity shares. The department therefore, initiated proceedings under section 83 against the petitioner and provisionally attached her bank accounts. She field writ petition against the same.
The Honorable High Court observed that there is nothing placed on record to show that there was material available with the department, linking the petitioner to purported fake invoices. In other words, in the absence of such material, the impugned action concerning provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts, which is otherwise a “draconian” step, was unsustainable. In the zeal to protect the interest of the revenue, the department cannot attach any and every property, including bank accounts of persons, other than the taxable person. Therefore, it was held that provisional attachment orders were liable to be quashed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Preface: –
1. This writ petition is directed against the orders of even date, i.e., 07.12.2020 passed by the respondent, whereby several bank accounts of the petitioner have been provisionally attached.
1.1 The details of these bank accounts, which have been provisionally attached by the respondent, are set forth hereafter.
