Provisional Attachment by Assistant Commissioner Held Valid under Delegated Powers

Case Details:
Case Title: M/s NRM Metals (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Petition No.: Special Civil Application No. 4910 of 2025 (with SCA 5176/2025, 5541/2025, 5837/2025)
Category: Provisional Attachment, Blocking of ITC, Validity of Officer’s Jurisdiction
Date of Judgment: 09/05/2025
Relevant Sections: Sections 67, 83, 2(91), 5(3), 16(2)(c) of CGST/GGST Act, 2017
Coram: Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice P. M. Raval

Facts of the Case [Paras 5.1–5.7]

• The petitioner-company is engaged in the trade of steel and building materials. On 06.03.2025, a search was conducted under Section 67 at the principal place of business and the residence of one of the directors [Para 5.2].

• ITC was blocked and the bank account provisionally attached on the same day without a conclusive search closure [Para 5.3].

• Despite the petitioner’s request for more time to comply, documents were seized and repeated summons issued [Para 5.4–5.5].

• Sundry debtors were also provisionally attached on 21.03.2025 [Para 5.6].

• Petitioners argued that the transactions were legitimate “Bill to – Ship to” models, and that duplicate e-way bills were mistakenly generated without fraudulent intent [Para 5.7].

Questions in Consideration [Paras 6–7]

1. Whether the impugned summons and provisional attachments are valid without Document Identification Number (DIN)?

2. Whether Assistant Commissioner is a “proper officer” authorized to issue orders under Section 83?

3. Whether provisional attachments made without consideration of the nature of transactions and objections are valid?

Observation of Court

• DIN Requirement: The CBIC Circular No. 37/2019 requiring DIN was found inapplicable to State GST officers, as no equivalent circular was issued by the Gujarat State Tax Authority [Paras 8–10].

• Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner: The Court upheld the delegation of powers under Section 5(3) read with Section 2(91), validating the order dated 15.01.2018 that assigns powers under Section 83 to Deputy and Assistant Commissioners [Paras 11–14].

• Challenge on Merits: Petitioners had not filed any objections under the satisfaction note justifying attachment. Hence, Court refrained from commenting on merits and advised filing proper objections with the department [Para 15].

Judgment of the Court [Paras 15–16]

• The petitions were disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file objections before the respondent-authority.

• The authority was directed to decide the objections expeditiously, preferably within two weeks of receipt.

• No costs were imposed.

Between Fine Lines (Simplified Summary)

• State GST officers are not bound by CBIC’s DIN circular unless separately adopted.

• Assistant Commissioners can issue attachment orders if authorized through proper delegation by the Commissioner.

• Duplicate e-way bills due to misinterpretation won’t by themselves invalidate proceedings.

• Objections to satisfaction notes must be filed first before approaching the Court.

• The Court allowed departmental remedy first, without quashing the attachments.

Summary of Referred Cases

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.”