1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. By these petitions, the petitioners seek the following substantive reliefs in both the petitions:

(a) issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.1 dated 01.10.2021;

(b) issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.1 to pass an order to de-freeze all the bank accounts of the Petitioners mentioned in para 5 which have been provisionally attached by the Respondent No.1 in the impugned order dated 01.10.2021.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 1st October 2021 provisionally attaching the bank accounts of the petitioners was illegal and beyond the scope of the powers conferred on the authority under Section 83 of the Goa Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He submits that admittedly no proceedings have been initiated as against the petitioners nor any show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners and as such the impugned order passed by the respondent-authority is in clear contravention of the provisions of Section 83 of the Goa GST Act. He further submits that the petitioners were under an impression that the respondent No.1- authority had passed the order freezing the petitioners’ accounts, as there was default in payment of tax committed by M/s. Muktar Automobiles Private Limited, a sister concern of the petitioners. However, the same is not the case. He submits that considering the aforesaid, the impugned order freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners was completely unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law.

5. The respondent No.1 has filed an affidavit of Mr. Hemant Kumar, Commissioner of Commercial Taxes i.e. respondent No.1.  

6. The learned Advocate General fairly submitted that admittedly no proceedings have been initiated as against the petitioners under the Goa GST Act, much less, any show cause notice has been issued to any of the petitioners.

7. Section 83 of the Goa GST Act would come into operation only if any proceedings are pending under Sections 62, 63 or 64 or Section 67 or section 73 or section 74. Admittedly, as noted above, there are no proceedings pending or initiated as against the petitioners under any of the provisions. Neither any show cause notice has been issued to any of the petitioners. It appears that the impugned order is passed only because the respondent No.1 has appointed an appropriate officer for determining the tax liability of the petitioners. Mere appointment of an appropriate officer for determining the tax liability will certainly not be a ground to initiate any action, like the present one i.e. of provisionally freezing the bank accounts of the petitioners under the Goa GST Act.

8. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 1st October 2021 cannot be sustained and as such is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the aforesaid petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).  

9. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The petitions are disposed of accordingly.