In this case, the Honourable High Court of Delhi ruled that temporary attachment orders might be made against taxable personal property, but that temporary attachment orders made against directors' bank accounts based on fictitious Input Tax Credit (ITC) claims against their firm were invalid.
In the instant case titled Roshni Sana Jaiswal v. Commissioner of Central Taxes GST Delhi (East), the issue raised for clarification before the Delhi High Court was:
Whether the petitioner can be linked to the fake invoices or not?
With regard to this issue, the Honourable High Court noted that there is no evidence on file to support claims that the petitioner was connected to allegedly false invoicing. In other words, the otherwise "draconian" conduct concerning the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts was unsupportable in the absence of such material. The department is prohibited from attaching any property, including the bank accounts of people who are not taxable in an effort to safeguard the interest of the revenue. As a result, it was decided that temporary attachment orders might be revoked.
The Court can and should use its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, among other things, in cases where the challenged action or order lacks jurisdiction. The complainant is not a taxable citizen, which is one of the jurisdictional ingredients.
The Court categorically stated that,
“In the counter-affidavit, the only aspect that the respondent has pointed out qua the petitioner is the "voluntary" statement made by her on 03.12.2020. We have alluded to what the petitioner has said in her statement, which is, in turn, gleaned from the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent. In our opinion, there is nothing in the statement of the petitioner, which would show that she had anything to do with the purported illegal transaction said to have been carried out between Milkfood Ltd. [i.e., the taxable person], and its suppliers".
Hence, the impugned action concerning provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts, which is otherwise a "draconian" measure, was unsustainable in the absence of such content. The respondent cannot bind any and all land, including bank accounts of persons other than the taxable individual, in order to protect the revenue's interests.