M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1); GST statutory provision - Section 147

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: The prayers made out in the writ petition are as follows:- "A- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of provisional attachment in Form DRC-22 dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure-1 & 2) passed by respondent no. 2, provisionally Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nishant Mishra, Vedika Nath Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Krishna Agarawal, Krishna Mohan Asthana, Maneesh Mehrotra, Saumitra Singh M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Operative disposition: With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. September 22, 2025 Rakesh WTAX No. 4630 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B.
• Which factual, statutory and procedural conditions controlled the requested relief?
• How did the forum apply the governing provisions to the evidence and procedural history recorded in this case?

Material facts and procedural background

HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J. (Judgment dictated in open Court by Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) 1. Heard Mr. Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Krishna Agarawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. K.M. Asthana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the provisional attachment carried out by the revenue with regard to two bank accounts of the petitioner under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). 3. The prayers made out in the writ petition are as follows:- "A- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of provisional attachment in Form DRC-22 dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure-1 & 2) passed by respondent no. 2, provisionally Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nishant Mishra, Vedika Nath Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Krishna Agarawal, Krishna Mohan Asthana, Maneesh Mehrotra, Saumitra Singh M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

attaching bank account No.120033996329 maintained with Canara Bank, Kotdwar Branch and bank account bearing No.25430200000000263 maintained with Indian Overseas Bank, Kotdwar Branch; B- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure-3) of respondent no. 3 blocking the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.1,95,57,339/-; C- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith allow operations of both bank accounts of the petitioner forthwith unblock the credit ledger of the petitioner; ..." 4. Mr. Nishant Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the reasons provided in the attachment notice are absolutely false and contrary to the facts.

He submits that the reason for attachment has been stated to be that proceedings have been launched against the aforesaid taxable person under Section 74 of the Act. He further submits that till date, no show cause notice has been issued under Section 74 of the Act. He also submits that Section 83 of the Act, being a draconian provision wherein the bank accounts of the petitioner has been attached resulting in complete halt in the business of the petitioner, is to be applied in rare instances and only after proper reasons for the same are provided by the authorities. 5. Per contra, Mr. Krishna Agarawala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revenue passes on the instructions and states that a search was carried out in the premises of the petitioner and the investigation against the petitioner is an ongoing process.

A plain reading of the above section reveals that the provisional attachment should only be carried out to protect the interest of the Government when the authorities find it necessary to do so, and such order of attachment is required to be in writing. The Supreme Court and this Court in catena of judgments have categorically held that the reasons provided in the attachment notice must be proper. Lack of reasons would result in quashing of the provisional attachment as a valuable right of the petitioner is threatened by the said provisional attachment. 8. Before proceeding further, one may have a brief look at the exposition of law on the subject matter at hand.

to levy a provisional attachment is draconian in nature. By the exercise of the power, a property belonging to the taxable person may be attached, including a bank account. The attachment is provisional and the statute has contemplated an attachment during the pendency of the proceedings under the stipulated statutory provisions noticed earlier. An attachment which is contemplated in Section 83 is, in other words, at a stage which is anterior to the finalisation of an assessment or the raising of a demand. Conscious as the legislature was of the draconian nature of the power and the serious consequences which emanate from the attachment of any property including a bank account of the taxable person, it conditioned the exercise of the power by employing specific statutory language which conditions the exercise of the power.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

The judgment does not separately label this side’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment does not separately label the respondent’s submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full record.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

tangible material which indicates a live link to the necessity to order a provisional attachment to protect the interest of the government revenue. *** “76.4. The power to order a provisional attachment of the property of the taxable person including a bank account is draconian in nature and the conditions which are prescribed by the statute for a valid exercise of the power must be strictly fulfilled. 76.5. The exercise of the power for ordering a provisional attachment must be preceded by the formation of an opinion by the Commissioner that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. Before ordering a provisional attachment the Commissioner must form an opinion on the basis of tangible material that the assessee is likely to defeat the demand, if any, and that therefore, it is necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue.

We are of the view that the legislature never intended this provision to be read in a casual manner, as the provision for provisional attachment is a drastic measure that the Department takes even before assessing the liability of the petitioner. This provision is in the nature of preventive detention in criminal cases where one detains a person without any offence having been committed. 9. In light of the above, it becomes extremely necessary for the Department to justify the reasons for such a provisional WTAX No. 4630 of 2025

No. since inception may also be provided for necessary action at this end. Jitendra Kumar 23.07.2025 (Jitendra Kumar) Commissioner." 11. Upon a perusal of the said letter, the only reason that emanates is that the present provisional attachments are required to be made as proceedings have been launched against the aforesaid taxable person under Section 74 of the Act. There is not a whisper of any specific requirement or ground at the present stage or formation of any reasoned opinion for provisionally attaching the said bank accounts. Secondly, as it appears from the facts, no proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act. In light of the same, we are of the view that there is no reason provided for the provisional attachment notice and the alleged supportive reason that has been provided is a completely ludicrous one.

Operative decision and relief

If the reason that provisional attachment is being done as proceedings have been initiated under Section 74 of the Act is allowed to stand, then in all proceedings wherein show cause notice is issued under Section 74, provisional attachment would become valid. The law as laid down in the abovementioned judgements makes it patently clear that a proper opinion has to be formed based on adequate reasons for such a draconian action to be taken. In the present case, such reasons are definitely lacking and the impugned order is absolutely perverse and arbitrary. In light of the same, both the provisional attachment notices are without any basis in law and are required to be quashed and set-aside.

We, accordingly, quash and setaside the provisional attachment notices dated July 23, 2025 with a direction upon the authority concerned to have the same released within a period of 48 hours from date. We make it clear that the order passed in Court today shall not in any way hinder the authorities from issuing a fresh notice under Section 83 of the Act in accordance with law. 12. With regard to blocking of the electronic credit ledger, the authorities are directed to look into the reply of the petitioner, grant a personal hearing, and thereafter, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. The WTAX No. 4630 of 2025

entire process of passing a reasoned order on the issue of blocking of the electronic credit ledger should be completed within a period of two weeks from date. 13. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. September 22, 2025 Rakesh WTAX No. 4630 of 2025

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others concerns issue and context: the prayers made out in the writ petition are as follows:- "a- issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of provisional attachment in form drc-22 dated 23.07.2025 (annexure-1 & 2) passed by respondent no. 2, provisionally versus counsel for petitioner(s) : nishant mishra, vedika nath counsel for respondent(s) : a.s.g.i., dhananjay awasthi, krishna agarawal, krishna mohan asthana, maneesh mehrotra, saumitra singh m/s soraza recycling private limited .....petitioner(s) union of india and 4 others .....respondent(s) operative disposition: with the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. september 22, 2025 rakesh wtax no. 4630 of 2025 (praveen kumar giri,j.) (shekhar b. The proposition cannot be separated from the judgment’s facts, the governing statutory version, the forum’s jurisdiction, and the exact relief recorded in WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025.

For working-paper purposes, the decision should be cited only after matching the material facts and reading the passages under the judgment-grounded record above. The editorial outcome label “Disposed” is a navigation aid; it does not replace the operative order or explain every issue in a multi-issue case.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant when a file raises the same central question identified in the source headnote: Issue and context: The prayers made out in the writ petition are as follows:- "A- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders of provisional attachment in Form DRC-22 dated 23.07.2025 (Annexure-1 & 2) passed by respondent no. 2, provisionally Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nishant Mishra, Vedika Nath Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Krishna Agarawal, Krishna Mohan Asthana, Maneesh Mehrotra, Saumitra Singh M/S Soraza Recycling Private Limited .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Operative disposition: With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. September 22, 2025 Rakesh WTAX No. 4630 of 2025 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1); GST statutory provision - Section 147—to the procedural posture and evidence before it.

The authority level is High Court. That affects persuasive or binding weight, but authority level alone is never enough. Territorial jurisdiction, statutory period, the identity of the challenged order, and later appellate treatment must all be checked before the case is used in advice, a submission, or litigation strategy.

Practitioner action points

• Begin with the complete judgment and mark the paragraphs supporting the exact proposition relied upon.
• Match the statutory version of GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1); GST statutory provision - Section 147 and the decision date 2025-09-22; do not assume the current text is identical.
• Compare the notice, assessment, appeal or other procedural sequence with the chronology recorded in this case.
• Verify the stated later-history status and any review, appeal, SLP, curative or rectification proceedings before citation.
• Record why the client’s evidence is materially similar, and also record any fact capable of distinguishing the result.

Does this case match your facts?

Detailed reliance and distinction analysis

Identity check. Confirm that the cited cause title is M/s Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. - 4630 of 2025, and the decision is dated 2025-09-22. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.; PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.. A later order by another bench, a larger bench, or a higher forum may alter the weight or interpretation of the proposition.

Provision check. The source associates the dispute with GST statutory provision - Section 62; GST statutory provision - Section 63; GST statutory provision - Section 64; GST statutory provision - Section 67; GST statutory provision - Section 73; GST statutory provision - Section 74; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 83(1); GST statutory provision - Section 147. The practitioner should place the historical statutory text next to the current text and identify every amendment, proviso, explanation, rule or notification that could change the analysis.

Fact check. The source issue is not a free-standing abstract rule. It arises from the concrete record summarized above. A reliable application note should list the common facts, the different facts, and whether each difference affects jurisdiction, admissibility, limitation, burden, computation or relief.

Remedy check. The recorded result is Disposed. Where a matter is remanded, set aside, partly allowed, or disposed with directions, the exact operative language is more important than a binary winner/loser label.

History check. The current closure state is Review / appeal / SLP and later treatment: check pending. If that state is pending, the page does not assert that no later case exists. It means the check remains open and must be completed at the point of professional reliance.

Section / provision impact

• GST statutory provision - Section 62 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 63 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 64 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 67 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 73 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 74 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 83 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 83(1) — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.
• GST statutory provision - Section 147 — apply the exact version considered in the judgment.

Case network

• M/s SA Aromatics Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• GMG TRADELINK PVT. LTD. v. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE HQ & ORS. — Delhi High Court · Disposed
• M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/S Graziano Trasmissioni v. Goods And Services Tax And 5 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 692 judgments
• Explore Provisional Attachment & Recovery

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Official primary text, exact sanitized mirror · Repository status: Published