Order Date – 27 December 2023

Parties: M/s Arhaan Ferrous and Non Ferrous Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs The Senior Intelligence Officer, 3, The Senior Intelligence Officer, The Deputy Director, A.P. State Directorate of Revenue  Intelligence, The Special Commissioner,, A.P. State Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep. by its Principal Secretary (Revenue)(GST) Department

Facts –

• The Petitioner, M/s Arhaan Ferrous and Non Ferrous Solutions Pvt Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of iron scrap and during the course of search operations conducted by the respondent authorities U/s 67 of A.P. Goods & Service Tax Act, on 31.03.2022, the respondent authorities seized the books of accounts.
• Summons were issued to the director and employees of the company and their statements were recorded. Thereafter by way of impugned provisional orders of attachment the accounts of the petitioner maintained with the respondents 6 and 7 banks have been provisionally attached.

Issue –

• Whether the provisional attachment is proper?

Order –

• The Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed that when sub-Rule (5) of Rule 159 of the Rules specifically provides for filing objections against the orders of provisional attachment, the contention that the reasons for ordering provisional attachment were recorded in the Note File and that there is no need to extract the same or state the same in the provisional order of attachment, cannot stand for judicial scrutiny.
• No doubt in the counter it is claimed by the respondents that order DRC-22 under Section 83 was issued with the above extracted (a) to (h) reasons. However, on perusal of the provisional attachment order dated 01.04.2022 issued by the 4th respondent under Form GST DRC 22 r/w Rule 159(1), it does not contain any reasons except mentioning that in order to protect the interest of the revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred U/s 83 of the Act the said order was issued.
• Thus, in essence the reason given by this Court for passing interim order holds good even in the main writ petition also. The averments in the counter and passing of the assessment order will not improve the case of respondents in the main writ petition to uphold the provisional attachment order passed by the 4th respondent. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed.