Case Title: M/s Brijbihari Concast Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Meerut Zonal Unit & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Petition No.: W.P.(C) 8433/2024, CM APPLs. 34828/2024 & 16421/2025
Category of Dispute: Provisional Attachment under GST
Date of Judgement: 15th April, 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 67, Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017; Rule 159 of CGST Rules, 2017
Facts of the Case (¶2–14)
-
The Petitioner, a manufacturer and trader of steel products, had its bank account provisionally attached by DGGI following a search and seizure on 13.12.2023 (¶7–9).
-
DGGI alleged GST evasion of ₹15.09 crores through clandestine removal of goods, supported by a voluntary statement of Director Sanjeev Agarwal (¶10).
-
The Petitioner argued the assessment was based on eye-estimation, no SCN was issued till date, and it had already paid over ₹100 crores GST and ₹4.06 crores Income Tax in the last three years (¶11, ¶13–14).
-
Bank balance of attached account was around ₹2.75 crores, and attachment was causing business hardship (¶14).
Question(s) in Consideration (¶16–18)
-
Whether the provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s bank account under Section 83 CGST Act was justified in absence of SCN or adjudication?
-
Whether attachment of the entire account was disproportionate considering the Petitioner’s tax compliance history and financial standing?
Observations of the Court (¶16–20)
-
Panchnama only showed prima facie mismatch; no SCN issued for over 16 months, though department has 3 years to issue (¶16–17).
-
Even assuming alleged evasion of ₹15.09 crores, the entire amount is not immediately payable (¶18).
-
Petitioner is a running concern, paying substantial taxes, with recorded assets worth ₹50.29 crores (family net worth) as per CA certificate (¶19–20).
Judgement of the Court (¶21–25)
-
Court directed the Petitioner to maintain minimum balance of ₹1.5 crores (≈10% of alleged liability) in the attached bank account (¶21–22).
-
Subject to this condition, Petitioner is free to operate the bank account (¶23).
-
Petitioner’s Ghaziabad residential property barred from creating third-party interest till final adjudication (¶24).
-
Petition disposed with these directions (¶25).
Between Fine Lines
-
GST officers cannot keep accounts fully frozen indefinitely without SCN.
-
Provisional attachment must be proportionate to protect revenue interest.
-
Courts balance business continuity with revenue protection.
-
Only 10% safeguard ordered, not full freeze.
-
Relief granted considering Petitioner’s strong tax compliance and asset backing.
Summary of Referred Cases
(No specific judicial precedents were cited or relied upon in this judgment; only statutory provisions of CGST Act & Rules were discussed.)
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
