1. By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ-applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

30(a) to declare the impugned Order No.GSL/S.5(1)/S.83/B.14 dated 15.01.2018 issued by respondent no.2, as without authority of law and ultra vires the provisions of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act.

(b) to quash and set aside the impugned Form DRC 22 dated 06.10.2020 attaching the property and DRC 22 dated 07.10.2020 attaching the bank accounts and fixed deposits, issued by the respondent no.4.

(c) pending admission, hearing and till final disposal of this petition, be pleased to direct the respondents

(i) to release the bank accounts provisionally attached by the respondent no.4, as in Annexure K;

(ii) not to take any coercive action against the petition.

(d) to issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) or any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice;

(e) to award costs of and incidental to this application be paid by the respondents;

2. We have heard Mr. Avinash Poddar, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant and Mr. Chintan Dave, the learned AGP appearing for the respondents.

3. It appears from the material on record that the writ-applicant has been served with a show-cause notice under Section74 of the SGST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-01 dated 07/10/2020. The liability, which is sought to be fasten by way of the said show-cause notice is around ₹ 3,46,133/[inclusive of interest and penalty]. It appears that as the proceedings under Section74 of the Act came to be initiated, the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Surat passed an order of provisional attachment of the immovable properties as well as the cash credit account of the writ-applicant maintained with the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Surat in Form GST DRC-22, dated 06/10/2020.

4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, the writ-applicant is here before this Court with the present writ-application.

5. We are of the view that the cash credit account of the writ-applicant should not have been ordered to be provisionally attached under Section 83 of the SGST Act, 2017. The position of law in this regard is now well-settled. Even otherwise, Mr. Poddar, the learned counsel would submit that for a liability of ₹ 3 lac and odd amount, the authority ought not to have proceeded to provisionally attached the immovable properties worth rupees more than 10 crores. He would further submit that as the cash credit account came to be freezed and rather provisionally attached, all other accounts including the term deposits have also been provisionally attached.

6. At this point of time, we would not like to comment anything as regards the provisional attachment of the immovable properties. We may only say that the provisional attachment of the cash credit account bearing No.510044020408 with the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Surat cannot continue and the same is hereby lifted. Ultimately, if the entire liability as sought to be fasten is discharged by the writ-applicant, then the authority may continue passing appropriate orders lifting the provisional attachment of the immovable properties also.

7. With the above, this writ-application stands disposed of.