Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) Can’t Direct Bank to Block Debit from Assessee’s Bank Account | Delhi HC

Case Details: Vikas Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Tax (GST) - [2023] 153 taxmann.com 332 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Vibhu Bakhru & Amit Mahajan, JJ.
  • Ms Vibhooti Malhotra, Bhuvensh Satija & Mudit Sharma, Advs. for the Petitioner.
  • Anurag Ojha, SSC & Gautam Barwal, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the petitioner filed writ petition against the communication issued by the Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) to the Bank Manager to furnish certain documents pertaining to the petitioner and directed the bank not to permit any debit from the petitioner’s bank account without prior permission of the Department. It was contended that the impugned communication was without authority of law.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that in the instant case, the impugned communication emanated from Superintendent (Anti-evasion) and not by Commissioner exercising jurisdiction in respect of tax payer. Also, the impugned communication did not indicate that it was issued with authority of Commissioner since the law provided that no order under Section 83 can be passed by any officer other than the Commissioner.

The Court further noted that the orders of provisional attachment of bank accounts or other assets of a taxpayer has a serious adverse effect on the business of the taxpayer. Therefore, the impugned communication was to be set aside and since the concerned revenue authority had not acted in accordance with statutory provisions, cost of Rs. 5000 was levied on Revenue which will be recovered from the concerned officer.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2021] 127 taxmann.com 26/2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 113/86 GST 665 (SC) (para 4) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2021] 127 taxmann.com 26/2021 (48) G.S.T.L. 113/86 GST 665 (SC) (para 4).