GST provisional attachment requires formation of opinion based on tangible material and strict adherence to statutory procedure.

The Petitioner, a Limited Liability Partnership, challenged provisional bank attachment orders dated 23 January 2026 issued under Section 83 of the MGST/CGST Act, 2017.

The Respondents attached the Petitioner’s accounts at Punjab National Bank and Saraswat Co-operative Bank on the same day they issued a pre-attachment communication (Form GST DRC-23).

The attachment followed proceedings initiated under Section 67(2) of the Act to determine tax dues.

The Petitioner contended that the attachment was issued without the mandatory formation of an opinion based on tangible material.

Despite the Petitioner submitting a detailed objection on 30 January 2026—citing Supreme Court precedents and offering alternate security—the Respondents failed to respond and maintained the attachment for three months, effectively bringing the Petitioner’s business to a standstill.

Section 83 of the Maharashtra/Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach property to protect government revenue during the pendency of certain proceedings.

Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) 6 SCC 771, which characterized the power of provisional attachment as "draconian" and established five mandatory conditions: formation of an opinion, necessity for protecting revenue, written orders, and adherence to procedural rules.

Chokshi Arvind Jewellers v. Union of India (2024) 134 GSTR 494 (Bom), emphasizing that such orders must reflect a proximate nexus to the revenue’s interest based on objective facts.

Article 300A of the Constitution of India regarding the right to property.

The court found that the Respondents failed to follow the "strict and punctilious observance" of statutory preconditions required for provisional attachment.

The court noted that the pre-attachment notice and the final attachment order were issued on the same day, indicating that no genuine opinion was formed regarding the necessity of the strike.

Applying the doctrine of proportionality from Radha Krishan Industries, the court observed that the officer acted with "unwarranted coercion" by ignoring the Petitioner’s offer of alternate security and correct legal information provided in their representation.

The court determined that the officer’s conduct was an "apparent abuse of powers" and a "conscious departure" from mandatory legal requirements.

Because the attachment continued for three months without a show-cause notice, it resulted in a "live death" of the Petitioner’s business and a violation of Article 300A.

It held that the officer’s actions were high-handed and based on a total disregard for settled law.

The court directed the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Investigation-A, to personally deposit ₹25,000 as costs with the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within two months.

The Respondents were granted liberty to issue a fresh show-cause notice within six weeks if tangible material for recovery exists.