This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 26.09.2019 passed in W.P.No.21494/2019 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein has been allowed setting aside the Annexures-D and E dated 27.08.2018 and 17.10.2018 respectively issued by the office of the Commissioner of Central Tax.

2. The appellants having invoked Section 83 of the Central and Service Tax Act, 2017 [‘Act’ for shot] by issuing provisional attachment notice dated 30.03.2019 [Annexure-L to the writ petition], the respondent – assessee has preferred writ petition contending that the ingredients stated under Section 83 would not attract. The learned Single Judge having examined the proceedings initiated under Section 83 of the Act vis-à-vis the provisions of Section 83 has come to the conclusion that none of the requirements contemplated under Section 83[1] of the Act being satisfactorily found, allowed the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition by the Revenue.

3. Learned counsel for the Revenue inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure-D letter dated 27.08.2018 issued by the Superintendent [PREV], office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, submitted that the said letter is nothing but the notice/proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Act. Pursuant to the said proceedings initiated, summons to witnesses were issued as per letter dated 17.10.2018 [Annexure-E]. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought not to have held that no proceedings under Section 74 of the Act were pending to invoke Section 83[1] of the Act. Learned counsel further submitted that according to the statement submitted by the respondent, no GST liability was discharged since November-2017. The respondent being involved in the supply of renting of immovable property i.e., the incidence of both service and supply, the provisions of Section 13[2][a] of the Act is applicable. However, the respondent has failed to pay GST though issued the invoices to the service receiver. Based on the intelligence report vide letter dated 27.08.2018, the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act were initiated. These aspects are not properly appreciated by the Writ Court while allowing the writ petition. Thus, seeks for interference of this Court.

4. Learned counsel of the respondent would submit that none of the requirements of Section 83[1] of the Act as it stood during the relevant period were satisfied to invoke Section 83[1] of the Act. The letter dated 27.08.2018 cannot be construed as the notice of proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Act as contended by the Revenue. Having regard to these aspects, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no ingredients of Section 83 of the Act is found to have been complied with. Hence, allowed the writ petition rejecting the contention of the Revenue and the same has to be confirmed by this Court, rejecting the writ appeal.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the show cause notice dated 29.06.2020 has been issued by the Revenue under Section 74 of the Act relating to the period April 2019 to February 2020 and the assessment orders are passed for the months May, June, July 2020. The respondent-assessee has preferred. W.P.No.3955/2021 against the said show cause notice and three assessment orders are passed. Hence, this Writ appeal relating to the provisional attachment notice does not survive for consideration.

6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The fulcrum of dispute revolves around the provisional attachment notice dated 30.03.2019 [Annexure-L] issued under Section 83 of the Act by the Revenue. Section 83 of the Act as it stood during the relevant period reads thus:

“(1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to c by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, be the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed.”

8. The main contention of the respondent-assessee that no proceedings under Section 62 or Section 63 or Section 64 or Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act were pending at the time of issuance of the notice under Section 83 of the Act has been extensively analyzed by the learned Single Judge with respect to Annexures-D and E claimed to be the notice/proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Act by the Revenue. Having examined the provisions of Section 74 read with Section 83 of the Act and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it has been held by the Writ Court that no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the Revenue to show that the proceedings were initiated under Section 74 of the Act so as to pass the order under Section 83 of the Act.

9. We cannot subscribe to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue that Annexures-D and E would demonstrate the pendency of the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act. At any stretch of imagination, these documents Anexures-D and E would not be construed as the material evidence to establish the pendency of proceedings under Section 74 of the Act. It is trite that when the Act specifically provides the requirements for invoking Section 83, it has to be strictly adhered to. Merely referring to the letter which indeed does not refer to section 74, it cannot be presumed that such proceedings under Section 74 of the Act were pending to initiate proceedings under Section 83 of the Act. Inference that could be drawn from the material available on record cannot be stretched to consider any letter issued requesting the assessee to pay the bills to be the compliance of Section 83 of the Act. In other words, compliance of the necessary ingredients/conditions is sine qua non and it has to be done in letter and spirit not in a cryptic and cavalier manner.

10. Having regard to these aspects, the learned Single Judge has rightly negated the contentions of the Revenue. It is significant to note that every such provisional attachment shall ceased to have effect after the expiry period of one year from the date of the order under Sub-section (1) of Section 83 In the circumstances, learned Single Judge ought to have quashed Annexure-L – the provisional attachment notice dated 30.03.2019 not Annexures-‘D’ and ‘E’ we clarify the same. Annexure-L dated 30.03.2019 is set aside.

11. Subsequent events now sought to be placed on record by the learned counsel for the assessee to buttress the arguments that the adjudication of the writ appeal at this juncture would be academic though may have some force, we are not inclined to dwell upon the same since the relevant tax periods for the provisional attachment not being made clear in the impugned Annexure-L.

With the aforesaid clarification, we find no reasons to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, writ appeal stands dismissed.

However, setting aside Annexure-L or dismissal of this writ appeal would not come in the way of the Revenue to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observations if any made in this order shall not have any influence on the pending Writ Petition No.3955/2021.