Facts: Global Tabacc Legacy challenged a provisional attachment order issued on July 24, 2024, u/s 83 of the GST Act, claiming it was necessary to protect government revenue. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the required reasoning from the Commissioner supporting the necessity of the attachment. The respondents presented a note claiming to indicate reasons for the Commissioners opinion, but it was not part of the official order.
Decision: The court determined that the impugned order did not include any reasons from the Commissioner justifying the necessity of the provisional attachment. It highlighted that Section 83(1) mandates that the Commissioner must provide written reasons for forming such an opinion. Consequently, the court quashed the provisional attachment order.

Facts: Global Tabacc Legacy challenged a provisional attachment order issued on July 24, 2024, u/s 83 of the GST Act, claiming it was necessary to protect government revenue. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the required reasoning from the Commissioner supporting the necessity of the attachment. The respondents presented a note claiming to indicate reasons for the Commissioners opinion, but it was not part of the official order.
Decision: The court determined that the impugned order did not include any reasons from the Commissioner justifying the necessity of the provisional attachment. It highlighted that Section 83(1) mandates that the Commissioner must provide written reasons for forming such an opinion. Consequently, the court quashed the provisional attachment order.

Facts: Global Tabacc Legacy challenged a provisional attachment order issued on July 24, 2024, u/s 83 of the GST Act, claiming it was necessary to protect government revenue. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the required reasoning from the Commissioner supporting the necessity of the attachment. The respondents presented a note claiming to indicate reasons for the Commissioners opinion, but it was not part of the official order.
Decision: The court determined that the impugned order did not include any reasons from the Commissioner justifying the necessity of the provisional attachment. It highlighted that Section 83(1) mandates that the Commissioner must provide written reasons for forming such an opinion. Consequently, the court quashed the provisional attachment order.

Facts: Global Tabacc Legacy challenged a provisional attachment order issued on July 24, 2024, u/s 83 of the GST Act, claiming it was necessary to protect government revenue. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the required reasoning from the Commissioner supporting the necessity of the attachment. The respondents presented a note claiming to indicate reasons for the Commissioners opinion, but it was not part of the official order.
Decision: The court determined that the impugned order did not include any reasons from the Commissioner justifying the necessity of the provisional attachment. It highlighted that Section 83(1) mandates that the Commissioner must provide written reasons for forming such an opinion. Consequently, the court quashed the provisional attachment order.

Facts: Global Tabacc Legacy challenged a provisional attachment order issued on July 24, 2024, u/s 83 of the GST Act, claiming it was necessary to protect government revenue. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the required reasoning from the Commissioner supporting the necessity of the attachment. The respondents presented a note claiming to indicate reasons for the Commissioners opinion, but it was not part of the official order.
Decision: The court determined that the impugned order did not include any reasons from the Commissioner justifying the necessity of the provisional attachment. It highlighted that Section 83(1) mandates that the Commissioner must provide written reasons for forming such an opinion. Consequently, the court quashed the provisional attachment order.

Facts: Global Tabacc Legacy challenged a provisional attachment order issued on July 24, 2024, u/s 83 of the GST Act, claiming it was necessary to protect government revenue. The petitioner contended that the order was invalid as it lacked the required reasoning from the Commissioner supporting the necessity of the attachment. The respondents presented a note claiming to indicate reasons for the Commissioners opinion, but it was not part of the official order.
Decision: The court determined that the impugned order did not include any reasons from the Commissioner justifying the necessity of the provisional attachment. It highlighted that Section 83(1) mandates that the Commissioner must provide written reasons for forming such an opinion. Consequently, the court quashed the provisional attachment order.