AJAY TEWARI,J. - (1.) By this petition the petitioner has challenged (i) an order by which his bank account was attached and (ii) prayed for refund of Rs.63.00 lakhs which as per him was got deposited by him without there being any Show Cause Notice or demand.
(2.) As regards the first relief he has relied upon Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') to contend that in the present case the order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Section 83 of the Act is to the following effect :- "83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases (1)Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed. (2)Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1)."
(3.) As per the counsel for the respondents the order itself reveals that it was passed with the consent of the Commissioner. However, this would not be a complete answer because under Rule 159 a person whose property has been provisionally attached can file objections and if the written order of the Commissioner is not communicated to him he would not be in a position to know what are the reasons which the Commissioner had, to arrive at the conclusion that it was in the interest of the Revenue to attach the property. If what is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted then such a person would never have the benefit of the reasons which weighed with the Commissioner and consequently not be able to file any effective objection.;