Justice C.Saravanan said that the bank attachment issued u/s 79(1)(c) needed a proper adjudication to determine whether the applicant can be obligated for the tax arrears of the company u/s 89 of the GST Act.

Justice C.Saravanan said that the bank attachment issued u/s 79(1)(c) needed a proper adjudication to determine whether the applicant can be obligated for the tax arrears of the company u/s 89 of the GST Act.

The court stated that the representation of the applicant had to be acknowledged, and the department needed to first determine the question of obligation after furnishing him a chance to be heard.

The court asked the authorities to consider the impugned bank attachment notice as a Show Cause Notice (SCN) and allow the applicant to furnish a detailed representation within 30 days. It asked the Deputy Commissioner to pass a final order as per the merits in 2 months, post-furnishing a chance of a personal hearing.

The court ordered that the bank attachment be lifted temporarily, but required the applicant not to make any unusual transfers that could undermine the proceedings. The writ petition was disposed of with these directives, and there was no order regarding costs.

a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that when an authority has recorded that an assessee’s explanations for all entries in the seized records are “very satisfactory,” it should allow the appeal instead of remanding the matter for fresh consideration. V.V. Vanniaperumal & Sons, engaged in the manufacture and sale of gingelly oil and allied products, reported a turnover of Rs. 48.46 crore for the assessment year 1996-97. During an inspection on 24 February 1997, officials recovered 39 slips containing details of business transactions, referred to as D7 records. The Assessing Officer treated the entries as evidence of suppression of sales and completed a best judgment assessment after rejecting the company’s expla