GST Bank Attachment Quashed for Parallel Proceedings | HC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 29 April, 2026
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: B. B. Metal Vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax [2026] 185 taxmann.com 595 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
-
Sandeep Sachdeva, Devang Bhatia & Swarnima Shinde for the Petitioner.
-
Ms Shruti Vyas, Addl. G.P & D. S. Deshmukh for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of five bank accounts made by the State tax authorities through Form GST DRC-22 under Section 83 of the CGST Act read with the Maharashtra GST Act. It was contended that identical proceedings for the same subject matter and tax period were already initiated by the Central authorities, who had conducted searches, issued summons, blocked input tax credit (ITC), and issued show cause notices. Despite the ongoing central proceedings and the jurisdictional objections raised by the petitioner, the State authorities conducted a parallel search and attached all bank accounts. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the impugned provisional attachment amounted to an abuse of process of law and resulted in the deprivation of property without lawful authority, contrary to constitutional protections. It was observed that the statutory framework under Section 6 of the CGST Act, which governs cross-empowerment and avoidance of parallel proceedings between Central and State tax authorities, clearly barred overlapping action once one authority had already initiated proceedings for the same subject matter and period. The Court further held that the State authorities could not invoke Section 83 of the CGST Act to justify attachment when the Central authorities were already seized of identical proceedings, making the exercise arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction. Accordingly, the DRC-22 attachment orders were quashed and the petitioner was permitted to operate its bank accounts.
List of Cases Referred to
- Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST [2025] 177 taxmann.com 478/111 GST 400/101 GSTL 289 (SC) (para 2).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
