Case: M/s Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh &amp; Ors

4. The facts in the context of which this case arises are thus: the appellant manufactures lead according to the specific requirements of its clients, and has a factory at village Meerpur Gurudwara, Kala-Amb in the District of Sirmaur of Himachal Pradesh. The appellant has been in the same line of business since 2008. Upon the introduction of the Goods and Services tax(GST), the appellant migrated to and was registered under GST - GSTIN No. O2AAKFR7402H2ZE - with effect from 1 July 2017.5. On 3 October 2018, a notice( The respondents before this Court have stated that the said document was in fact a memo under Section 70 of HPGST Act and not a show cause notice, and it was inadvertently mentioned that it was a notice issued under Section 74 of the HPGST Act.) was issued to the appellant under Section 74 of the HPGST Act and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act(CGST Act) by the third respondent requiring it to appear on 9 October 2018 and produce (i) invoices pertaining to inward and outward supplies for the years 2017-18 and 2018-19; (ii) party-wise summary/ledger of inward supplies; (iii) proof of payment of GST with a commodity-wise breakup; and (iv) copies of GSTR-1, GSTR-2 and GSTR-3 returns from July 2017 to July 2018. The appellant appeared before the third respondent and submitted original tax invoices pertaining to inward and outward supplies for 2017-18 and 2018-19 by a letter dated 15 October 2018.6. On 10 October 2018, a detection case was registered against GM Powertech, Kala-Amb (GM Powertech), one of the suppliers of the appellant, under Section 74 of the HPGST Act and the CGST Act read with Section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(IGST Act). This was through a search and seizure under Section 67 of the HPGST Act and CGST Act. The partners of GM Powertech were arrested on 3 December 2018 on the ground of raising fraudulent claims of input tax credit (ITC) from fake/fictitious firms in Delhi and Kanpur.7. The appellant received a memo by an e-mail dated 15 December 2018 from the third respondent directing it to be present on 17 December 2018 for explaining the allegedly illegal claim of ITC made during 2017-18 and 2018-19. By its letter dated 17 December 2018, the appellant contended that it had validly claimed ITC as it fulfilled the conditions under Section 16 and other provisions of the HPGST Act and the CGST Act.8. On 9 January 2019, a notice( SCN) was issued to Fujikawa Power, Bagbania, BBN Baddi, one of the customers of the appellant, for provisionally attaching an amount of Rs. 5 crores due to the appellant, under Section 83 of the HPGST Act. On 19 January 2019, the third respondent passed an order of provisional attachment in respect of receivables worth Rs. 5 crores due from Fujikawa Power. This order inadvertently referred to Sarika Industries instead of the appellant. The appellant responded by a representation dated 29 January 2019, claiming inter alia, that the order of attachment was without affording a hearing. The appellant also claimed that on 26 December 2018, they had noticed that the ITC had been blocked without prior notice. On 30 January 2019, the notice of attachment was withdrawn by the third respondent.9. According to the respondents, after the case of GM Powertech was investigated, tax evasion was detected. GM Powertech was found to have claimed and utilized ITC against invoices issued by fake fictitious firms without actual movement of goods… GM Powertech had issued invoices to various recipients in Himachal Pradesh including the appellant. On 4 July 2020, the third respondent issued an intimation to the appellant under Section 74(5) of the HPGST Act of tax ascertained as being payable(Form GST DRC-01A), advising it to pay tax, interest and penalty of Rs. 5.03 crores. The appellant was given an opportunity to file its submissions against the ascertainment of the amount by 4 August 2020.10. A tax liability of Rs 39.48 crores was confirmed against GM Powertech on the conclusion of the proceedings against it. GM Powertech was found to have no business establishment or property in Himachal Pradesh and the case was considered to fall into the category of a serious tax fraud.11. On 21 October 2020, the Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh (second respondent/Commissioner) delegated his powers under Section 83 of the HPGST Act to the third respondent. In exercise of the powers delegated by the Commissioner, the third respondent issued two orders of provisional attachment ( DRC-22 vide Memo No EXN-JCSTE/SEZParwanoo/2020-21/1171 and EXN-JCSTE/SEZParwanoo/2020- 21/1167 (orders of provisional attachment)) dated 28 October 2020 attaching the receivables of the appellant from its customers, Fujikawa Power and M/s Deepak International. The attachment order issued to Fujikawa Power under Rule 159(1) of the HPGST Rules noted that it owed about Rs. 4 crores to the appellant. The order states that the appellant was found to be involved in an ITC fraud amounting to Rs.5,03,82,554/- (Rs. 5.03 crores) during 2017-18 and 2018-19. The order, in its relevant part, provides:In order to protect the interests of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred/delegated by Commissioner of the State Taxes & Excise, HP vide office order No.12-4/78-EXN-Tax-Part- 278/22(a)- 26780-82 dated 21.10.2020 under section 83 of the Act, I, U.S. Rana, Joint Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise, South Enforcement Zone, Parwanoo, hereby provisionally attach the payment to the extent of Rs.5,03,82,554/- of M/s Radha Krishan Industries, Kala-Amb. Henceforth, no payment shall be allowed to be made from your company to M/s RadhaKrishan Industries without the prior permission of this department / office.A similar order was issued to Deepak International, noting that a payment of Rs. 2.91 crores was owed by it to the appellant.12. On 4 November 2020, the appellant filed a representation and objections against the attachment and denied liability. By an order dated 6 November 2020, the third respondent rejected the objections of the appellant. The third respondent stated that collectively payments only worth Rs. 4.92 crores from both of the appellants customers were attached.13. On 27 November 2020, the third respondent issued a notice to show cause to the appellant under Section 74(1) of the HPGST Act for recovering the ITC, interest and penalty. The notice was issued on the basis that the appellant had claimed ITC on the supplies received from GM Powertech and since the inward supplies made by GM Powertech were found to be fake, the appellants claim of ITC was also in question.14. The orders of provisional attachment and the order passed by the Commissioner on 21 October 2020 delegating his powers under Section 83 of the HPGST Act to the third respondent, were challenged by the appellant before the High Court in a writ petition(Writ Petition No. 5648 of 2020) under Article 226.15. While dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that it was undisputed that the third respondent and the Divisional Commissioner, who has been appointed as Commissioner (Appeals) under the GST Act, are constituted under the HPGST Act, and therefore, it is assumed that there is no illegal or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The High Court further observed that even if there is some defect in the procedure followed during the hearing of the case, it does not follow that the authority acted without jurisdiction, and though the order may be irregular or defective, it cannot be a nullity so long it has been passed by the competent authority.16. The High Court held that a writ is ordinarily not maintainable when there exists an alternative remedy. The exceptions to this rule are where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the legislation; or acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure or where an order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The High Court held that it would not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an efficacious remedy is available to the aggrieved person or where the statute under which the action complained of has been taken contains a mechanism for redressal of grievances. The High Court held that when a statutory forum of appeal exists, an appeal should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.17. Noting that the appellant has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the HPGST Act, the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition. The High Court held that it was fortified in this view by the fact that the writ petition filed by GM Powertech, has also not been entertained and that it has been relegated to avail of the alternative remedy.18. Subsequent to the dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court, certain developments have taken place. On 12 January 2021, the appellant sought to inspect the files for GM Powertech and stated that no documents in this regard had been provided to it in context of the proceedings initiated under Section 74. In response, the third respondent allowed the appellant to inspect the contents of the appellants case file. According to the respondent, the appellant failed to exercise this option and did not reply to the show cause notice dated 27 November 2020. Thereafter, on 18 February 2021, an order under Section 74(9) of the HPGST Act was passed by the third respondent confirming a tax demand of Rs. 8,30,27,218. This order under Section 74(9) has been assailed by the appellant before the appellate authority under Section 107. The dismissal of the petition challenging the orders of provisional attachment is in question in the present proceedings.

Reasoning:
22. The appellant has advanced submissions on and adverted to the merits of the proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the HPGST Act. The order dated 18 February 2021 under Section 74 (9) of the HPGST Act is not in challenge before this Court. An appeal against the order is pending before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the HPGST Act.24. The High Court has dealt with the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Relying on the decision of this Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others v Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited AIR 2020 SC 2819 , the High Court noted that although it can entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, it must not do so when the aggrieved person has an effective alternate remedy available in law. However, certain exceptions to this rule of alternate remedy include where, the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the law or acted in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure; or has resorted to invoke provisions, which are repealed; or where an order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Applying this formulation, the High Court noted that the appellant has an alternate remedy available under the GST Act and thus, the petition was not maintainable.25. In this background, it becomes necessary for this Court, to dwell on the rule of alternate remedy and its judicial exposition. In Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 (Whirlpool), a two judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this point, noted:14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for any other purpose.15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.26. Following the dictum of this Court in Whirlpool (supra), in Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (2003) 2 SCC 107,  this court noted that7. So far as the view taken by the High Court that the remedy by way of recourse to arbitration clause was available to the appellants and therefore the writ petition filed by the appellants was liable to be dismissed is concerned, suffice it to observe that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. (See Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] .) The present case attracts applicability of the first two contingencies. Moreover, as noted, the appellants dealership, which is their bread and butter, came to be terminated for an irrelevant and non-existent cause. In such circumstances, we feel that the appellants should have been allowed relief by the High Court itself instead of driving them to the need of initiating arbitration proceedings. (emphasis supplied)27. The principles of law which emerge are that :(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well;(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person;(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law;(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.30. The decision of this Court in Raman Tech Process Engg Co and Anr v Solanki Traders 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 195 was concerned with the power of a civil court under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC to order an attachment before judgment. In that case, proceedings had been instituted by the respondent, for the recovery of moneys due for the supply of material to the appellant. The plaintiff moved an application under Order 38 Rule 5, for a direction to the defendants to furnish security for the suit claim and if they failed to do so, for attachment before judgment. This Court described the power of attachment before judgment in the following terms:5. The power under Order 38, Rule 5 Civil Procedure Code is a drastic and extraordinary power. Such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking. It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. The purpose of Order 38, Rule 5 not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilize the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a leverage for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Instances are not wanting where bloated and doubtful claims are realized by unscrupulous plaintiffs, by obtaining orders of attachment before judgment and forcing the defendants for out of court settlements, under threat of attachment.6. A defendant is not debarred from dealing with his property merely because a suit is filed or about to be filed against him. Shifting of business from one premises to another premises or removal of machinery to another premises by itself is not a ground for granting attachment before judgment. A plaintiff should show, prima facie, that his claim is bona fide and valid and also satisfy the court that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC. Courts should also keep in view the principles relating to grant of attachment before judgment [internal citation omitted].31. A body of precedent has emerged in the High Courts on the exercise of the power under Section 83 of the CGST Act (akin to the State GST Act (SGST Act)). The shared learning which emerges from these decisions of the High Court needs recognition. In Valerius Industries v Union of India 2019 (30) GSTL 15 (Gujarat), the Gujarat High Court laid down the principles for the construction of Section 83 of the SGST/CGST Act. The High Court noted that a provisional attachment on the basis of a subjective satisfaction, absent any cogent or credible material, constitutes malice in law. It further outlined the principles for the exercise of the power:The order of provisional attachment before the assessment order is made, may be justified if the assessing authority or any other authority empowered in law is of the opinion that it is necessary to protect the interest of revenue. However, the subjective satisfaction should be based on some credible materials or information…It is not any and every material, howsoever vague and indefinite or distant, remote or far-fetching, which would warrant the formation of the belief.(1) The power conferred upon the authority under Section 83 of the Act for provisional attachment could be termed as a very drastic and far-reaching power. Such power should be used sparingly and only on substantive weighty grounds and reasons.(3) The power of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act should be exercised by the authority only if there is a reasonable apprehension that the assessee may default the ultimate collection of the demand that is likely to be raised on completion of the assessment. It should, therefore, be exercised with extreme care and caution.(4) The power under Section 83 of the Act for provisional attachment should be exercised only if there is sufficient material on record to justify the satisfaction that the assessee is about to dispose of wholly or any part of his/her property with a view to thwarting the ultimate collection of demand and in order to achieve the said objective, the attachment should be of the properties and to that extent, it is required to achieve this objective.(5) The power under Section 83 of the Act should neither be used as a tool to harass the assessee nor should it be used in a manner which may have an irreversible detrimental effect on the business of the assessee.(6) The attachment of bank account and trading assets should be resorted to only as a last resort or measure. The provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Act should not be equated with the attachment in the course of the recovery proceedings.(7) The authority before exercising power under Section 83 of the Act for provisional attachment should take into consideration two things:(i) whether it is a revenue neutral situation.(ii) the statement of output liability or input credit. Having regard to the amount paid by reversing the input tax credit if the interest of the revenue is sufficiently secured, then the authority may not be justified in invoking its power under Section 83 of the Act for the purpose of provisional attachment.37. Another case which is relevant for our purposes is the decision of the Bombay High Court in Kaish Impex Private Limited v Union of India (2020) 6 AIR Bom R 122. In this case, the taxation authorities were enquiring into fraudulent claiming of ITC on the basis of fictitious transactions by an export firm in Delhi, against whom proceedings under Section 67 of the CGST Act had been initiated. On tracing the money trail, the petitioner was summoned under Section 70 of the CGST Act and his bank accounts were provisionally attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act. On dealing with the question of whether the bank accounts of the petitioner could be attached, when there were no pending proceedings against him and proceedings were pending against another taxable entity, the High Court held that the proceedings referred to under Section 83 of the Act must be pending against the taxable entity whose property is being attached. The High Court noted that:18. […] Section 83 though uses the phrase pendency of any proceedings, the proceedings are referable to section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of the Act and none other. The bank account of the taxable person can be attached against whom the proceedings under the sections mentioned above are initiated. Section 83 does not provide for an automatic extension to any other taxable person from an inquiry specifically launched against a taxable person under these provisions. Section 83 read with section 159(2), and the form GST DRC-22 show that a proceeding has to be initiated against a specific taxable person, an opinion has to be formed that to protect the interest of Revenue an order of provisional attachment is necessary. The format of the order, i.e. the form GST DRC-22 also specifies the particulars of a registered taxable person and which proceedings have been launched against the aforesaid taxable person indicating a nexus between the proceedings to be initiated against a taxable person and provisional attachment of bank account of such taxable person. (emphasis supplied)40. The marginal note to Section 83 provides some indication of Parliamentary intent. Section 83 provides for provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. The first point to note is that the attachment is provisional – provisional in the sense that it is in aid of something else. The second point to note is that the purpose is to protect the revenue. The third point is the expression in certain cases which shows that in order to effect a provisional attachment, the conditions which have been spelt out in the statute must be fulfilled. Marginal notes, it is well-settled, do not control a statutory provision but provide some guidance in regard to content. Put differently, a marginal note indicates the drift of the provision. With these prefatory comments, the judgment must turn to the essential task of statutory construction. The language of the statute has to be interpreted bearing in mind that it is a taxing statute which comes up for interpretation. The provision must be construed on its plain terms. Equally, in interpreting the statute, we must have regard to the purpose underlying the provision. An interpretation which effectuates the purpose must be preferred particularly when it is supported by the plain meaning of the words used.41. Sub-Section (1) of Section 83 can be bifurcated into several parts. The first part provides an insight on when in point of time or at which stage the power can be exercised. The second part specifies the authority to whom the power to order a provisional attachment is entrusted. The third part defines the conditions which must be fulfilled to validate the power or ordering a provisional attachment. The fourth part indicates the manner in which an attachment is to be leveled. The final and the fifth part defines the nature of the property which can be attached. Each of these special divisions which have been explained above is for convenience of exposition. While they are not watertight compartments, ultimately and together they aid in validating an understanding of the statute. Each of the above five parts is now interpreted and explained below:(i) The power to order a provisional attachment is entrusted during the pendency of proceedings under any one of six specified provisions: Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74. In other words, it is when a proceeding under any of these provisions is pending that a provisional attachment can be ordered;(ii) The power to order a provisional attachment has been vested by the legislature in the Commissioner;(iii) Before exercising the power, the Commissioner must be of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue, it is necessary so to do;(iv) The order for attachment must be in writing;(v) The provisional attachment which is contemplated is of any property including a bank account belonging to the taxable person; and(vi) The manner in which a provisional attachment is levied must be specified in the rules made pursuant to the provisions of the statute.42. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 83, a provisional attachment ceases to have effect upon the expiry of a period of one year of the order being passed under sub-Section (1). The power to levy a provisional attachment has been entrusted to the Commissioner during the pendency of proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or as the case may be, Section 74. Section 62 contains provisions for assessment for non-filing of returns. Section 63 provides for assessment of unregistered persons. Section 64 contains provisions for summary assessment. Section 67 elucidates provisions for inspection, search and seizure.46. Sub-Section (1) enables the proper officer to issue a notice to show cause for the recovery of tax, interest payable under Section 50 and the penalty equivalent to the amount of tax specified in the notice. Sub-Sections (2), (3) and (4) lay down procedural provisions which are to be followed by the proper officer. Secondly, under sub-Section (5) of Section 74, before the service of a notice under sub-Section (1), the person who is chargeable with tax may pay the tax together with interest and a penalty equivalent to fifteen per cent of the tax on the basis of their own ascertainment of the tax or as ascertained by the proper officer and inform the proper officer of the payment having been made upon receipt of the information. Sub-Section (6) stipulates that the proper officer shall not serve any notice under sub-Section (1) in respect of the tax so paid or any penalty payable under the provisions of the Act or the Rules.47. On the other hand, when the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount which has been paid under sub-Section (5) falls short of the amount which is actually payable, a notice under sub-Section (1) is to issue for the amount which falls short of what is actually payable. Sub-Section (8) contains a stipulation that where a person who is chargeable with tax under sub-Section (1) pays the tax together with interest and a penalty of twenty-five per cent of the tax within thirty days of the issuance of the notice, all proceedings in respect of the notice shall be deemed to be concluded. Under sub-Section (9), the proper officer after considering the representation of the person chargeable to tax is authorized to determine the amount of tax, interest and penalty due and to issue an order. A period of five years is stipulated by sub-Section (10) for the issuance of an order in sub-Section (9). Sub-Section (11) stipulates that upon service of an order under sub-Section (9), all proceedings in respect of the notice shall be deemed to be concluded upon the person paying the tax with interest under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to 50 per cent of the tax within thirty days of the communication of an order. These provisions indicate how sub-Sections (5), (8) and (11) operate at different stages of the process.50. These expressions in regard to both the purpose and necessity of provisional attachment implicate the doctrine of proportionality. Proportionality mandates the existence of a proximate or live link between the need for the attachment and the purpose which it is intended to secure. It also postulates the maintenance of a proportion between the nature and extent of the attachment and the purpose which is sought to be served by ordering it. Moreover, the words embodied in sub-Section (1) of Section 83, as interpreted above, would leave no manner of doubt that while ordering a provisional attachment the Commissioner must in the formation of the opinion act on the basis of tangible material on the basis of which the formation of opinion is based in regard to the existence of the statutory requirement. While dealing with a similar provision contained in Section 45 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act 2003 , one of us (Honble Mr Justice MR Shah) speaking for a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Vishwanath Realtor v State of Gujarat (Special Civil No. 7210 of 2015, decided on 29 April 2015) observed:8.3. Section 45 of the VAT Act confers powers upon the Commissioner to pass the order of provisional attachment of any property belonging to the dealer during the pendency of any proceedings of assessment or reassessment of turnover escaping assessment. However, the order of provisional attachment can be passed by the Commissioner when the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government Revenue, it is necessary so to do. Therefore, before passing the order of provisional attachment, there must be an opinion formed by the Commissioner that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government Revenue during the pendency of any proceedings of assessment or reassessment, it is necessary to attach provisionally any property belonging to the dealer. However, such satisfaction must be on some tangible material on objective facts with the Commissioner. In a given case, on the basis of the past conduct of the dealer and on the basis of some reliable information that the dealer is likely to defeat the claim of the Revenue in case any order is passed against the dealer under the VAT Act and/or the dealer is likely to sale his properties and/or sale and/or dispose of the properties and in case after the conclusion of the assessment/reassessment proceedings, if there is any tax liability, the Revenue may not be in a position to recover the amount thereafter, in such a case only, however, on formation of subjective satisfaction/opinion, the Commissioner may exercise the powers under Section 45 of the VAT Act.51. We adopt the test of the existence of tangible material. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of this Court in the Commissioner of Income Tax v Kelvinator of India Limited (2010) 2 SCC 723 . Mr Justice SH Kapadia (as the learned Chief Justice then was) while considering the expression reason to believe in Section 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment inter alia by the omission or failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that year, held that the power to reopen an assessment must be conditioned on the existence of tangible material and that reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. This principle was followed subsequently in a two judge Bench decision in Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 162 (2) v Techspan India Private Limited (2018) 6 SCC 685 . While adverting to these decisions we have noticed that Section 83 of the HPGST Act uses the expression opinion as distinguished from reasons to believe. However for the reasons that we have indicated earlier we are clearly of the view that the formation of the opinion must be based on tangible material which indicates a live link to the necessity to order a provisional attachment to protect the interest of the government revenue.55. A significant aspect of Rule 159(5) is that upon the levy of a provisional attachment, the person whose property is attached is empowered to file an objection within seven days on the ground that the property was or is not liable to attachment. In using the expression was or is no longer liable for attachment, the delegate of the legislature has comprehended two alternative situations. The first, evidenced by the use of the words was indicates that the property was on the date of the attachment in the past not liable to be attached. That is the reason for the use of the past tense was. The expression is not liable to attachment indicates a situation in praesenti. Even if the property, arguably, was validly attached in the past, the person whose property has been attached may demonstrate to the Commissioner that it is not liable to be attached in the present.56. The second significant aspect of sub-Rule (5) is the mandatory requirement of furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the person whose property is attached. This is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and ensures that a fair procedure is observed. Sub-Rule (5) provides for a post- provisional attachment right of:(i) Submitting an objection to the attachment;(ii) An opportunity of being heard.Sub - Rule (5) contains clear language to the effect that a person whose property is attached is entitled to two procedural entitlements: first, the right to submit an objection on the ground that the property was not or is not liable to be attached; and second, an opportunity of being heard to the person filing an objection. This is a clear indicator that in addition the filing of an objection, the person whose property is attached is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. It is not open to the Commissioner, as has been stated in the present case, to hold the view that the only safeguard under sub-Rule 5 is to submit an objection without an opportunity of a personal hearing. Such a construction would be plainly contrary to sub-Rule 5 which contemplates both the submission of an objection to the attachment and an opportunity of being heard. The opportunity of being heard can be availed of as a matter of right by the person whose property is attached. Both the right to submit an objection and to be afforded an opportunity of being heard are valuable safeguards. The consequence of a provisional attachment is serious. It displaces the person whose property is attached from dealing with the property. Where a bank account is attached, it prevents the person from operating the account. A business entity whose bank account is attached is seriously prejudiced by the inability to utilize the proceeds of the account for the purpose of business. The dual procedural safeguards inserted in sub-Rule 5 of Rule 159 demand strict compliance.The Commissioner who hears the objections must pass a reasoned order either accepting or rejecting the objections. To allow the Commissioner to get by without passing a reasoned order will make his decision subjective and defeat the purpose of subjecting it to judicial scrutiny. The Commissioner must deal with the objections and pass a reasoned order indicating whether, and if not, why the objections are not being accepted. Sub- Rule 6 of Rule 159 allows for the release of a property which either was or is no longer liable for attachment. The form in which such an order has to be passed, namely form GST DRC-23, states that now there is no such proceeding pending against the defaulting person which warrants attachment of the account or as the case may be, the property. Sub- Rules 5 and 6 do not expressly contemplate a situation in which the person whose property is attached can object on the ground that the attachment is in excess of the amount likely to be due for which proceedings have been launched under the Act. Nor does it provide for a specific opportunity to the taxable person to offer any alternative form of security in lieu of the attachment. Such an opportunity must be read in to the provision to allow for a fair working in practice. Whether any alternative security that is furnished by the taxable person should be accepted and if so, its sufficiency, is a matter for the Commissioner to determine. Undoubtedly, the taxable person may not have a right to demand that only a particular form of security must be accepted. The Commissioner has to decide whether the form of security offered would secure the interest of the revenue. Where the taxable person sets up the plea that the extent of the attachment is excessive or where the taxable person offers an alternative form of security, these are also matters which ought to be determined by the Commissioner in the exercise of powers under Rule 159(5). The scope of objection can also extend to the nature of the property which is being provisionally attached.59. The sole ground which has weighed with the High Court in holding that the writ proceedings were not maintainable is that the writ petitioner has not only (an) efficacious remedy, rather alternative remedy under the GST Act. In addition, the High Court has observed that the writ petition filed by GM Powertech against whom similar allegations have been leveled had been dismissed by relegating it to the pursuit of an alternative remedy. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that GM Powertech had been relegated to the pursuit of an alternative remedy since an order of assessment had been passed against it. However, insofar as the appellant is concerned, the writ proceedings were instituted to challenge the levy of a provisional attachment under Section 83 and there is no alternative remedy provided under the Act for challenging an order under Section 83.61. Sub-Section (1) of Section 107 makes it abundantly clear that an appeal to the Appellate Authority is available against a decision or order passed under the HPGST Act or CGST Act by an adjudicating authority.Sub-Section (2) confers a revisional power on the Commissioner in regard to the legality or propriety of a decision or order passed by an adjudicating authority.62. From the above definition, it is evident that the expression adjudicating authority does not include among other authorities, the Commissioner. In the present case, the narration of facts indicates that on 21 October 2020, the Commissioner had in exercise of his powers under Section 5(3) made a delegation inter alia to the Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise in respect of the powers vested under Section 83(1). The Joint Commissioner, in other words, was exercising the powers which are vested in the Commissioner under Section 83(1) to order a provisional attachment in pursuance of the delegation exercised on 21 October 2020. This being the position, clearly the order passed by the Joint Commissioner as a delegate of the Commissioner was not subject to an appeal under Section 107(1) and the only remedy that was available was in the form of the invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court was, therefore, clearly in error in declining to entertain the writ proceedings.63. The entire procedure which has been followed by the Joint Commissioner in the present case is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 83 read with Rule 159. The Joint Commissioner (acting on behalf of the Commissioner) has proceeded on an understanding that an opportunity of being heard to the person whose property is provisionally attached is a matter of discretion, the discretion of being that of the Commissioner.64. This understanding of the Commissioner is in the teeth of and clearly contrary to the provisions of Rule 159(5). Rule 159(5), as explained earlier contemplates two safeguards to the person whose property is attached. Firstly, it permits such a person to submit objections to the order of attachment on the ground that the property was or is not liable for attachment. Secondly, Rule 159(5) posits an opportunity of being heard. Both requirements are cumulative. The Commissioners understanding that an opportunity of being heard was at the discretion of the Commissioner is therefore flawed and contrary to the provisions of Rule 159(5). There has, hence, been a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice.66. Ex facie, the above order passed by the Joint Commissioner does not indicate any basis for the formation of the opinion that the levy of a provisional attachment was necessary to protect the interest of the government revenue. The order in the file noting refers to the fact that the case of GM Powertech had been decided under Section 74 resulting in an additional demand of Rs. 39 crores on account of a fraudulent claim of ITC for FY 2017-18 and 2018-19. GM Powertech is alleged to have passed on the ITC to various Registered Tax Persons(RTP) situated in Himachal Pradesh by issuing invoices inter alia to the appellant during 2018-19 for which a case under Section 74 had been initiated. The order records that the appellant had claimed ITC of Rs 3.25 crores on the strength of the invoices issued by GM Powertech. The order merely records that the submissions which were urged by the appellant on 5 August 2020 are not sustainable. In view of the facts involved in the case, the Joint Commissioner concluded that it is necessary at this stage to safeguard the government revenue and since the appellant had sold goods to Fujikawa the payment due to it was being attached provisionally. The order of the Joint Commissioner contains absolutely no basis for the formation of the opinion that a provisional attachment was necessary to safeguard the interest of the revenue. No tangible material has been disclosed. The record clearly reveals a breach of the mandatory pre- conditions for the valid exercise of powers under Section 83 of the HPGST Act.67. The order of provisional attachment under Section 83(1) is to be issued during the pendency of any proceedings under Section 62 or Section 63 or Section 64 or Section 67 or Section 73 or Section 74. In the present case, the notice to show cause under Section 74(1) of the HPGST Act was issued to the appellant on 27 November 2020. After the High Court dismissed the writ petition, this Court was moved under Article 136 of the Constitution. Notice was issued in the Special Leave Petition on 4 February 2021 returnable on 19 February 2021. A day before the case was listed, on 18 February 2021, an ex parte order was passed by the Joint Commissioner under Section 74 (9) of the HPGST Act confirming the demand of Rs 8,30,27,218 in the notice to show cause.68. It is evident from the facts noted above that the order of provisional attachment was passed before the proceedings against the appellant were initiated under Section 74 of the HPGST Act. Section 83 of the Act requires that there must be pendency of proceedings under the relevant provisions mentioned above against the taxable person whose property is sought to be attached. We are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that merely because proceedings were pending/concluded against another taxable entity, that is GM Powertech, the powers of Sections 83 could also be attracted against the appellant. This interpretation would be an expansion of a draconian power such as that contained in Section 83, which must necessarily be interpreted restrictively. Given that there were no pending proceedings against the appellant, the mere fact that proceedings under Section 74 had concluded against GM Powertech, would not satisfy the requirements of Section 83. Thus, the order of provisional attachment was ultra vires Section 83 of the Act.69. On 1 March 2021, the appellant has filed an appeal under Section 107 together with a deposit of Rs 32,15,488 representing ten per cent of the tax due. Section 107(6) contains the following stipulation:(6) No appeal shall be filed under sub-section (1), unless the appellant has paid—(a) in full, such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order, as is admitted by him; and(b) a sum equal to ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the said order, in relation to which the appeal has been filed.Sub-Section (7) stipulates that :(7) Where the appellant has paid the amount under sub-section (6), the recovery proceedings for the balance amount shall be deemed to be stayed.70. Clause (a) of sub-Section (6) provides that no appeal shall be filed without the payment in full, of such part of the amount of tax, interest, fine, fee and penalty arising from the impugned order as is admitted. In addition, under clause (b), ten per cent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute arising from the order has to be paid in relation to which the appeal has been filed. Upon the payment of the amount under sub-Section (6) the recovery proceedings for the balance are deemed to be stayed. Thus, in any event, the order of provisional attachment must cease to subsist. The appellant, having filed an appeal under Section 107, is required to comply with the provisions of sub-Section (6) of Section 107 while the recovery of the balance is deemed to be stayed under the provisions of sub- Section (7). As observed hereinabove and under Section 83, the order of provisional attachment may be passed during the pendency of any proceedings under Section 62 or Section 63 or Section 64 or Section 67 or Section 73 or Section 74. Therefore, once the final order of assessment is passed under Section 74 the order of provisional attachment must cease to subsist. Therefore, after the final order under Section 74 of the HPGST Act was passed on 18 February, 2021, the order of provisional attachment must come to an end.71. Moreover, an order of provisional attachment was issued by the Joint Commissioner which was withdrawn on 30 January 2019, after considering the representations made by the petitioner. On the very ground, without any material change in circumstances. Another order of provisional attachment came to be issued by another Joint Commissioner. Therefore, it was the contention of the petitioner before the High Court that the subsequent order of provisional attachment is in substance and effect an order reviewing the earlier order withdrawing the order of provisional attachment which was not permissible and therefore the subsequent order of provisional attachment is without jurisdiction. The High Court has not considered this aspect. Both the earlier and the subsequent orders of provisional attachment are on the same grounds. Therefore, unless there was a change in the circumstances, it was not open for the Joint Commissioner to pass another order of provisional attachment, after the earlier order of provisional attachment was withdrawn after considering the representations made by the petitioner. This is an additional ground to set aside the subsequent order of provisional attachment.