2025(09)LCX0185

Chattisgarh High Court

R B Drillers And Construction

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh

WPT No. 141 of 2025 decided on 24-09-2025

1

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPT No. 141 of 2025

1 - M/s R.B. Drillers And Construction Main Road Keshkal, Dist. Kondagaon C.G.
Through Its Proprietor Mr. Mohammed Arif, Aged About 56 Years, S/o Mr. Mo.
Haroon, R/o Village 128, Masjid Para, Keshkal, Dist. Kondagaon C.G.
                                                                                                ... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Chhattisgarh State Tax Department Through
Commissioner, Office At Commercial Tax Department, GST Bhawan, North Block
Sector-19, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, Raipur C.G.

2 - Directorate Of Jal Jeevan Mission Through Its Director, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G.
                                                                                                    ... Respondents

(Cause title, as taken from CIS)

For Petitioner                         : Mr. Raza Ali, Advocate
For State/Respondent(s)         : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, Govt. Advocate and
                                              Ms. Anuradha Jain, Panel Lawyer.

( Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)

Judgment on Board

24/09/2025

1. Heard.

2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

“A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of appropriate writ do issue commanding and directing the respondent authorities to produce before this Hon’ble Court all the relevant records pertaining to the case of the petitioner.

B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue quashing the impugned letter/order dated 21.03.2025 as being illegal, arbitrary, without any authority of law and in violation of fundamental and constitutional rights of the petitioner and also in violation of principle of natural justice.”

C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of appropriate nature do issue to the respondent No.2 to disburse the payments of the work done by the petitioner.

D. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

E. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in pursuance of the work order issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner performed various work like drilling of borewell and installation of pipe etc., to which, an amount is yet to be paid by respondent No.2. On 24.12.2024, respondent No.1 conducted raid in the office of petitioner and they prepared some documents, subsequently, they initiated proceeding under Section 74 of the Chapter 15 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (henceforth referred to as “the Act, 2017”). He would further submit that respondent No.1 has already attached bank account of petitioner. He further submitted that despite attachment of bank account, vide impugned order dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure-P/1), respondent No.1 directed respondent No.2 not to pay any amount to the petitioner of tender work done by it in Jal Jeevan Mission. He next submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771 has held that, the power to levy a provisional attachment is draconian in nature, therefore, there must be a formation of opinion before doing so. But, without mentioning any reason for opinion for attachment of payment payable to petitioner by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order Annexure -P/1, therefore, he prays that it may be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for State/respondents referring to its reply would submit that proceeding under Section 74 of the Chapter 15 of the Act, 2017 has been initiated. She would further submit that primarily it has been found that the petitioner has evaded about Rs. 2 crores. She further submitted that subsequently it is also revealed that he has evaded about Rs. 13 crores GST, hence, this petition is liable to be rejected.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is sorry state of affairs that GST Department issued notices, but neither they mentioned relevant provisions nor showed any ground to do so. Perusal of notice (Annexure-P/1) also does not show that it has been issued under which provision and what is the reason to attach amount payable by respondent No.2 to the petitioner. In the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra), while dealing with the provisions of Section 83 of the Act, 2017, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para Nos.49 and 50 as under:-

“49. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to emphasise that before the Commissioner can levy a provisional attachment, there must be a formation of "the opinion" and that it is necessary "so to do" for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue. The power 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. The language of the statute indicates first, the necessity of the formation of opinion by the Commissioner, second, the formation of opinion before ordering a provisional attachment; third the existence of opinion that it is necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue; fourth, the issuance of an order in writing for the attachment of any property of the taxable person; and fifth, the observance by the Commissioner of the provisions contained in the rules in regard to the manner of attachment. Each of these components of the statute are integral to a valid exercise of power. In other words, when the exercise of the power is challenged, the validity of its exercise will depend on a strict and punctilious observance of the statutory preconditions by the Commissioner. While conditioning the exercise of the power on the formation of an opinion by the Commissioner that "for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue, it is necessary so to do", it is evident that the statute has not left the formation of opinion to protecting the interest of the government revenue.

50. By utilising the expression "it is necessary so to do the legislature has evinced an intent that an attachment is authorised not merely because it is expedient to do so (or profitable or practicable for the Revenue to do so) but because it is necessary to do so in order to protect interest of the government revenue. Necessity postulates that the interest of the Revenue can be protected only by a provisional attachment without which the interest of the Revenue would stand defeated. Necessity in other words postulates a more stringent requirement than a mere expediency. A provisional attachment under Section 83 is contemplated during the pendency of certain proceedings, meaning thereby that a final demand or liability is yet to be crystallised. An anticipatory attachment of this nature must strictly conform to the requirements, both substantive and procedural, embodied in the statute and the rules. The exercise of unguided discretion cannot be permissible because it will leave citizens and their legitimate business activities to the peril of arbitrary power. Each of these ingredients must be strictly applied before a provisional attachment on the property of an assessee can be levied. The Commissioner must be alive to the fact that such provisions are not intended to authorise Commissioners to make pre-emptive strikes on the property of the assessee, merely because property is available for being attached. There must be a valid formation of the opinion that a provisional attachment is necessary for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue.”

7. Having considered the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court, if facts of the instant case are examined, it is found that prior to issuance of impugned notice, no reason has been assigned by respondent No.1, as to why provisional attachment of amount payable to the petitioner by respondent No.2 is necessary. Aforesaid impugned notice is found to be against the observation made by Hon’ble Apex Court, therefore, I feel inclined to allow the instant petition. Consequently, this Writ Petition (T) is allowed. The impugned notice dated 21.03.2025 (Annexure-P/1) is quashed.

8. However, liberty is left with the respondent No.1 to take steps in accordance with law for stoppage of payment of amount in question payable to the petitioner by respondent No.2, if so advised.

9. Parties shall bear their own cost(s).

SD/-               
(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi)
Judge