Facts of the Case

The petitioner, GMG Tradelink Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Headquarters, whereby the petitioner’s current bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd., Bhiwani Mandi Branch, bearing account numbers 360005000924 and 3600055000149, were provisionally attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.

The petitioner contended that the impugned order of provisional attachment was without jurisdiction, as the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI (HQ), was allegedly not a “Commissioner” competent to exercise powers under Section 83. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already filed objections dated 02.09.2025 under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules before the Commissioner, DGGI, New Delhi, raising objections to the provisional attachment.

Issues Involved

Whether the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, was competent to order provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, whether the provisional attachment of bank accounts suffered from jurisdictional infirmity, and whether the petitioner was entitled to further opportunity to raise objections against such attachment.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner argued that the power under Section 83 of the CGST Act could be exercised only by a “Commissioner” and not by the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI. It was contended that the impugned attachment was therefore without authority of law. The petitioner also relied upon objections already filed under Rule 159(5), asserting that the attachment ought to be lifted.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Revenue relied upon Notification No. 14/2017–Central Tax dated 01.07.2017, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, whereby officers of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence were appointed as Central Tax Officers and vested with powers equivalent to corresponding GST authorities. It was submitted that the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, was equivalent in rank to a Principal Commissioner and was therefore competent to exercise powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act.

Court Order / Findings

The Delhi High Court examined Notification No. 14/2017–Central Tax dated 01.07.2017 and held that the Principal Additional Director General, Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, is equivalent to a Principal Commissioner of GST and is duly empowered to exercise powers under the CGST Act, including Section 83. In view of the said notification, the Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge to the competence of the authority passing the provisional attachment order.

The Court further noted that the petitioner had already filed objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the provisional attachment, the Court permitted the petitioner to file fresh objections. The Court directed that upon filing of such objections, the reasons for provisional attachment shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of two weeks, and thereafter all remedies of the petitioner would remain open in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

The High Court clarified that while the authority passing the provisional attachment order was competent under Section 83 of the CGST Act, the assessee is entitled to raise objections under Rule 159(5) and seek appropriate relief in accordance with law. The Court did not adjudicate upon the merits or necessity of the provisional attachment.

Final Outcome

The writ petition was disposed of. The challenge to the competence of the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI, to pass the provisional attachment order was rejected. The petitioner was granted liberty to file fresh objections against the provisional attachment, with a direction to the authorities to communicate reasons for such attachment within two weeks of receipt of objections. All remedies of the petitioner were kept open to be availed in accordance with law.

Source Link- https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/PMS27102025CW162592025_164115.pdf

 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.