Namaste DOST,

Let me start with a straight question.

Can police attach your bank account in a GST matter?

Most people will say — “No, GST is tax. Police ka kya kaam?”

But the real answer is more layered. And more powerful.

Yes, police can attach a bank account in GST-related cases. But only if they walk the legal path properly.

And that’s exactly what the Calcutta High Court clarified in a recent and very important decision.

Summary

In Kirti Deora v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (Calcutta High Court, 13 February 2026), a taxpayer’s bank account was debit frozen by police during a GST-related investigation. The freeze was issued under Section 94 of the BNSS. The Court held that Section 94 only allows summoning of documents and does not empower police to freeze a bank account. It further clarified that attachment of property, including a bank account, can only be done under Section 107 BNSS, and that too with a Magistrate’s order. Since no such order existed, the freeze was quashed. However, the Court clearly stated that police may proceed again — but strictly in accordance with law. 

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Kirti Deora, proprietor of M/s Tirupati Trading, maintained a bank account with ICICI Bank, Kankurgachi Branch.

On 6 January 2025, the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh issued a notice directing the Bank to debit freeze her account under Section 94 of the BNSS.

The bank complied. The account stopped operating.

No withdrawals. No transactions. Business impact.

The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court challenging this debit freeze.

She argued:

• Section 94 BNSS does not permit freezing of a bank account.

• Section 83 of the CGST Act governs provisional attachment in GST matters.

• Investigation under GST had already taken place.

• The alleged ITC involved was ₹2,98,575.

The CGST side objected, saying the High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the investigation originated in Arunachal Pradesh.

Legal Issue

The Court had to decide two crucial questions:

1. Did the Calcutta High Court have territorial jurisdiction?

2. Can police debit freeze a bank account under Section 94 or Section 106 BNSS without a Magistrate’s order?

Simple questions. Heavy consequences.

⚖️ Court’s Decision

1 Territorial Jurisdiction – Where Did the Injury Happen?

The Court held that the main cause of action was the debit freeze of the bank account.

The account was in Kankurgachi, within its territorial jurisdiction.

The injury occurred there.

Relying on Nawal Kishore Sharma, the Court reiterated that a writ petition is maintainable where a legal right is infringed within that territory.

Since the right to operate the bank account was affected within its jurisdiction, the Court held it had the authority to hear the matter. 

2 Section 94 BNSS – Only for Documents, Not Freezing

The police relied on Section 94 of the BNSS.

But the Court carefully read the section.

Section 94 talks about summoning documents or things required for investigation.

It does not mention attachment.

It does not mention debit freezing.

It does not mention stopping bank operations.

The Court clearly held that Section 94 does not empower police to debit freeze a bank account. 

3 Seizure vs Attachment – The Critical Difference

Now comes the heart of the matter.

The Court examined:

• Section 106 BNSS (Seizure)

• Section 107 BNSS (Attachment)

And here lies the real legal clarity.

Section 106 – Seizure

Police may seize property suspected to be linked to an offence.

But they must report it to the Magistrate.

This is primarily for securing evidence.

Section 107 – Attachment

If property is believed to be “proceeds of crime,” police must:

• Obtain approval from senior authority.

• Apply before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

• Get an order of attachment.

Only then can attachment legally take place.

The Court relied upon Tamasha Samanta, which in turn referred to:

• Headstar Global Pvt. Ltd. (Kerala High Court)

• Mr. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur (Bombay High Court)

These decisions consistently held:

Debit freezing of a bank account is not permissible under Section 106 BNSS. Attachment requires compliance with Section 107 and a Magistrate’s order.

In this case, no such Magistrate order existed.

Therefore, the freeze was illegal.

The Court quashed the debit freeze and directed the Bank to allow operation of the account. 

Important Clarification – Police Power Still Exists

This is where many people misunderstand.

The Court did not say police have no power.

It said:

Police cannot bypass the legal procedure.

It expressly clarified that authorities are free to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

Which means:

Yes, police can attach bank accounts in GST cases.

But only under Section 107 BNSS.

And only with a Magistrate’s order.

What This Means for GST Cases

Let’s break it down practically.

GST investigation can sometimes involve allegations of fake ITC, bogus invoices, or fraud.

If police believe money in a bank account represents proceeds of crime, they can seek attachment.

But:

• They cannot use Section 94 casually.

• They cannot simply send a letter to the bank.

• They cannot freeze indefinitely without judicial oversight.

Attachment requires judicial supervision.

That’s the safeguard.

Important Message for Every Business Owner

• GST dispute is not automatically a criminal attachment case.

• Check the section under which your account is frozen.

• Ask: Is there a Magistrate’s order under Section 107?

• Seizure and attachment are not the same.

• Don’t assume freeze means guilt. It may mean procedural overreach.

I’ve seen clients panic when accounts freeze. Sleepless nights. Salary stuck. EMI bouncing.

But sometimes, the problem is not guilt.

It’s procedure.

And procedure matters.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling aligns with:

• Kusum Ingots (territorial jurisdiction principles)

• Nawal Kishore Sharma (legal right infringement test)

• Tamasha Samanta and Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur (no debit freeze under Section 106 BNSS)

It strengthens one principle:

Investigation power is real.

But unchecked power is not law.

Conclusion

So yes.

Police can attach bank accounts in GST cases.

But not casually. Not casually at all.

They must follow Section 107 BNSS.

They must approach the Magistrate.

They must act within the framework of law.

Because in taxation, power and protection walk together.

And if you know the law, you are not helpless.

That’s the difference between panic… and preparedness.kiri

📞 Need help with a GST attachment or bank freeze issue? Contact GST DOST for structured legal support.

FAQ

Q: Can police attach a bank account in a GST case?

Yes, but only by following Section 107 BNSS and obtaining a Magistrate’s order.

Q: Can police freeze a bank account under Section 94 BNSS?

No. Section 94 only permits summoning documents, not debit freezing.

Q: What did the Calcutta High Court decide in Kirti Deora case?

The Court quashed the debit freeze because no Magistrate’s order under Section 107 existed. 

Q: What is the difference between seizure and attachment?

Seizure (Section 106) is for securing evidence. Attachment (Section 107) is for securing proceeds of crime and requires judicial approval.

Q: Can a bank account be directly frozen during a GST investigation?

Answer: No. If the action amounts to attachment of the account, a Magistrate’s order is mandatory.

References

• Kirti Deora v. State of West Bengal & Ors., Calcutta High Court, 13.02.2026, WPA 1785 of 2025.

  Sections 94, 106, 107 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

• Article 226(2) – Constitution of India

• Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India (2004)

• Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India (2014)

• Tamasha Samanta v. Union of India (Calcutta HC, 2025)

• Mr. Kartik Yogeshwar Chatur v. Union of India (Bombay HC, 2025)

Written by CA Vikash Dhanania | Reviewed by GST DOST Legal Research Team | Updated on 09/02/2026

© GST DOST | When courts clarify the law, we help you apply it with confidence.