Smt. Lalita v. Central Goods And Service Tax And Another

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Issue and context: Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 is invalid having been issued without DIN number in violation of Circular dated 05.11.20219 and 23.12.2019. It is further contended that the ingredients germane for exercise of the power under Section 83 being absent the order dated 21.04.2023 is vitiated in law. The respondent no. 1 has also failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 159 of the CGST Rules 2017. The order impugned proceeds on the premise that proceeding sunder Section 122 of the Act have been launched against the petitioner through no show cause notice in form DRC-01 under Rule 142 has been issued so for. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in 2022 (64)GSTL 150 (All) Varun Gupta vs. Union of India and upon order dated 29.08.2022 passed in Writ Tax No.858 of 2022 (Varun Gupta vs.…
• 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

2. The writ petition has been filed assailing the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 21.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ghaziabad, respondent no. 1 whereby and whereunder the current account of the petitioner i.e. A/C No. 355401001796 maintained with ICICI Bank situate at 4, Part A, Gaur Global Village Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad-201009 has been provisionally attached exercising powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule159 (1) of the CGST Rules '2017'.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 is invalid having been issued without DIN number in violation of Circular dated 05.11.20219 and 23.12.2019. It is further contended that the ingredients germane for exercise of the power under Section 83 being absent the order dated 21.04.2023 is vitiated in law. The respondent no. 1 has also failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 159 of the CGST Rules 2017. The order impugned proceeds on the premise that proceeding sunder Section 122 of the Act have been launched against the petitioner through no show cause notice in form DRC-01 under Rule 142 has been issued so for. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in 2022 (64)GSTL 150 (All) Varun Gupta vs. Union of India and upon order dated 29.08.2022 passed in Writ Tax No.858 of 2022 (Varun Gupta vs. Union of India and another to buttress the point that attachment order in the absence of notice is vitiated.

Appellant / petitioner / assessee submissions

1. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Anuj Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Om Prakash Mishra, for respondent no. 2 and Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.

Revenue / respondent submissions

5. Per contra, Shri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue/Respondent no. 1 submits that during investigation it has been found that the PAN No. AEXPL 2406 in the name of the petitioner has been utilized for GST registration against four firms in the State of UP and the Union Territory of Delhi which have been found to be inactive. Certain queries have been raised by the department against the petitioner in that regard and the department in order to protect the interest of revenue has passed the order dated 21.04.2023 exercising powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 159 (1) of the CGST Rules 2017 provisionally attaching the current account of the petitioner. The exercise of power is in accordance with law and calls for no interference by this Court it is also contended by Shri Mahajan that the petitioner ought to have invoked Rule 159 (5) of the CGST Rules 2017 by filing objections against the attachment rather than directly approaching this Court invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is placed upon the decisions reported in 2021 (45) GSTL 104 (All) (R.J. Erim vs. Principal Commissioner of CGST), 2021 (52) GSTL 5 (ori) (Shri Radha Raman Alloys Private Limited vs. Union of India) and 2023 (72) GSTL167 (Bom) (Chotu Lal vs. Union of India).

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

6. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the case laws cited at the Bar we find that Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017 sets out the procedure to be followed for issuing a

Operative decision and relief

The operative relief must be read from the final paragraphs of the complete packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

The narrow proposition associated with Smt. Lalita v. Central Goods And Service Tax And Another concerns issue and context: learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 is invalid having been issued without din number in violation of circular dated 05.11.20219 and 23.12.2019. it is further contended that the ingredients germane for exercise of the power under section 83 being absent the order dated 21.04.2023 is vitiated in law. the respondent no. 1 has also failed to follow the procedure prescribed in rule 159 of the cgst rules 2017. the order impugned proceeds on the premise that proceeding sunder section 122 of the act have been launched against the petitioner through no show cause notice in form drc-01 under rule 142 has been issued so for. reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in 2022 (64)gstl 150 (all) varun gupta vs. union of india and upon order dated 29.08.2022 passed in writ tax no.858 of 2022 (varun gupta vs.… 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. 862 of 2023.

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: Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 21.04.2023 is invalid having been issued without DIN number in violation of Circular dated 05.11.20219 and 23.12.2019. It is further contended that the ingredients germane for exercise of the power under Section 83 being absent the order dated 21.04.2023 is vitiated in law. The respondent no. 1 has also failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Rule 159 of the CGST Rules 2017. The order impugned proceeds on the premise that proceeding sunder Section 122 of the Act have been launched against the petitioner through no show cause notice in form DRC-01 under Rule 142 has been issued so for. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions reported in 2022 (64)GSTL 150 (All) Varun Gupta vs. Union of India and upon order dated 29.08.2022 passed in Writ Tax No.858 of 2022 (Varun Gupta vs.… Its practical value lies in the way the Allahabad High Court connected the governing provisions—GST statutory provision - Section 2; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122—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 2; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122 and the decision date 2023-07-25; 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 Smt. Lalita v. Central Goods And Service Tax And Another, the proceeding is WRIT TAX No. 862 of 2023, and the decision is dated 2023-07-25. These fields are taken from the judgment record and should appear exactly in the citation note.

Bench check. The judgment identifies the coram as Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker,Chief Justice; Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,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 2; GST statutory provision - Section 83; GST statutory provision - Section 122. 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_SUBSEQUENT_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 2 — 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 122 — 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 Soraza Recycling Private Limited v. Union of India and Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed
• M/S Pawan Kumar Jain And Company v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others — Allahabad High Court · Disposed

Related Finin2min resources

• Case Law Hub
• Search all 792 judgments
• Explore Provisional Attachment & Recovery

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: OFFICIAL_PRIMARY_TEXT_SANITIZED_RENDITION · Repository status: PUBLISH_READY