Case Law Details
FCS Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (Gujarat High Court)
Gujarat High Court held that it is satisfied that provisional attachment is hindering the continuation of business of the petitioner, hence continuation of provisional attachment not necessary as the interest of revenue can be safeguarded by furnishing of a bank guarantee.
Facts-
The petitioner is impaired on account of the attachment of the two of its accounts with the DBS Bank and HSBC Bank and has made a request to release the attachment of the current bank accounts, however, the letter dated 02.12.2021 directed the Branch Manager, BDS Bank to continue to freeze the bank account. Thereafter also, once again similar request has been made but, by virtue of the subsequent directions, the attachment has continued. Thus, what emerges is that the first order attaching the bank accounts was passed on 13.05.2022. This provisional attachment under Section 281(B) of the Act had continued by virtue of the order dated 11.11.2022 which has been also challenged by way of draft amendment which is allowed by way of order dated 15.11.2022.
Petitioner alleges that the orders of provisional attachment of the bank accounts of the petitioner attaching more than Rs. 13 crores passed by the respondent are ex-facie bad in law, patently arbitrary on the ground that the orders are passed by the authority without any tangible material about any potential tax liability, even without framing any opinion as to how the interest of revenue is required to be protected particularly.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
