GST Bank Attachment Quashed for Parallel Proceedings

Case Details: B. B. Metal Vs. Joint Commissioner of State Tax [2026] 185 taxmann.com 595 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
Sandeep Sachdeva, Devang Bhatia & Swarnima Shinde for the Petitioner.
Ms Shruti Vyas, Addl. G.P & D. S. Deshmukh for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged the provisional attachment of five bank accounts made by the State tax authorities through Form GST DRC-22 under Section 83 of the CGST Act read with the Maharashtra GST Act. It was contended that identical proceedings for the same subject matter and tax period were already initiated by the Central authorities, who had conducted searches, issued summons, blocked input tax credit (ITC), and issued show cause notices. Despite the ongoing central proceedings and the jurisdictional objections raised by the petitioner, the State authorities conducted a parallel search and attached all bank accounts. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the impugned provisional attachment amounted to an abuse of process of law and resulted in the deprivation of property without lawful authority, contrary to constitutional protections. It was observed that the statutory framework under Section 6 of the CGST Act, which governs cross-empowerment and avoidance of parallel proceedings between Central and State tax authorities, clearly barred overlapping action once one authority had already initiated proceedings for the same subject matter and period. The Court further held that the State authorities could not invoke Section 83 of the CGST Act to justify attachment when the Central authorities were already seized of identical proceedings, making the exercise arbitrary and beyond jurisdiction. Accordingly, the DRC-22 attachment orders were quashed and the petitioner was permitted to operate its bank accounts.