Department must consider/resolve the petitioner’s objections filed u/r Rule 159 within a reasonable timeframe, to prevent the rule from becoming a mere formality

The Rajasthan High Court in this case, acknowledged that under Rule 159(5), any person whose property is attached may file an objection to the attachment, and the Commissioner may release the property after considering the objection, issuing an order in FORM-GST DRC-23 – However, the Rule does not specify a time limit for deciding such objections. The court emphasized that objections must be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, as prolonged delays would defeat the purpose of allowing objections to provisional attachments.

The Court noted that two months had already passed since the petitioner submitted the objection and stated that, in the absence of an express provision, objections should ideally be decided within an outer limit of three months from the date of submission.

The Court directed respondent authority to resolve the petitioner’s objection by affording an opportunity of being heard. Also, suggested that the respondents must issue an appropriate circular ,if not already in place prescribing a time limit for deciding objections to prevent the rule from becoming a mere formality. This is particularly important as Section 83 of the CGST Act limits the maximum duration of a provisional attachment to one year. 

In this case, the respondent authority provisionally attached the petitioner’s bank account via an order in FORM-GST DRC-22. Petitioner was informed of this attachment through the bank, without receiving direct communication of the order from the authorities. The Petitioner argued that that while the objection was submitted in a timely manner, it has remained undecided, and leaving it pending indefinitely violates the spirit of the law. The petitioner seeks a resolution within a reasonable time.

To read the complete judgment 2024 Taxo.online 2151