R.B. Drillers And Construction Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The petitioner, R.B. Drillers and Construction, approached the Chhattisgarh High Court seeking multiple reliefs, including the production of relevant records, quashing of the impugned order dated 21 March 2025, and directions for the disbursement of payments for completed contractual work. The petitioner also requested any other relief deemed fit by the Court and sought costs of the petition.
According to the petitioner, the company had executed drilling, borewell, and pipeline installation works as per a work order issued by respondent No. 2 under the Jal Jeevan Mission scheme. Despite completion of the assigned work, the payment due from respondent No. 2 remained unpaid. On 24 December 2024, respondent No. 1 conducted a raid at the petitioner’s office, prepared certain documents, and thereafter initiated proceedings under Section 74, Chapter 15 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“the Act, 2017”). Following this, the petitioner’s bank account was attached.
The petitioner’s grievance was that despite the attachment of its bank account, respondent No. 1 issued another order dated 21 March 2025 directing respondent No. 2 not to release any payment to the petitioner for work completed under the tender. The petitioner argued that this action was arbitrary and without authority of law. Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (2021) 6 SCC 771, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the power of provisional attachment under the GST Act is “draconian” in nature and must be exercised only after forming a valid and recorded opinion. The petitioner contended that in the present case, no such reasons or formation of opinion had been recorded before issuing the impugned direction, and therefore, the order deserved to be quashed for violating principles of natural justice and constitutional safeguards.
