GSPS Developers Private Limited Vs DCIT (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by GSPS Developers Private Limited challenging the attachment of its bank account by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT). The court found the petition lacking essential disclosures and noted contradictions in the petitioner’s claims.
Issue and Background
The writ petition contested the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account by the tax authorities. This action followed an adjudication order issued under Section 73 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period of April 2020 to March 2021.
The petitioner filed an appeal against the adjudication order on September 1, 2025, which was admittedly filed beyond the prescribed time limit and included an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner contended that on the very same day the appeal was filed, their bank account was attached. They sought a direction from the High Court for the attachment order to be withdrawn, arguing that a pre-deposit of ₹14,58,320/- had been made alongside the late appeal.
Court’s Examination and Reasoning
The court scrutinised the petition and found several critical deficiencies and contradictions:
1. Lack of Disclosure on Attachment Date: The writ petition contained only a general statement about the bank account attachment, failing to disclose the specific date on which the attachment order was made.
2. Absence of Notice (Form GST DRC-13): The petitioner initially made no disclosure regarding a notice in Form GST DRC-13 (a notice for recovery proceedings) being served. In response to a direct query from the court, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that no such notice had been served, a fact that was not reflected in the writ petition itself.
3. Contradictory Claims on Show Cause Notice: The petitioner claimed to be unaware of the initial show cause notice. However, documents on record suggested otherwise, indicating that the petitioner’s director was aware of the notice and had even sought an extension of time, citing the GST accountant’s absence during the Christmas vacation.
The court noted that immediately after filing the time-barred appeal and making the pre-deposit, the petitioner “rushed before this Court.”
