2021(01)LCX0094

Delhi High Court

ELECTRO DEVICES PVT. LTD

Versus

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL

W.P.(C) 1814/2020 decided on 21/01/2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 W.P.(C) 1814/2020

ELECTRO DEVICES PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner

Through: Ms. Anjali Jha Manish, Mr. Priyadarshi Manish, Advocates.

versus

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GST INTELLIGENCE & ANR. ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Senior Standing Counsel, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R
21.01.2021

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

1. The counsel for the petitioner states that she has yesterday only filed a rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit of the respondents but the same has not come on record. She however states that, (a) this writ petition was filed impugning the provisional attachment, under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), of (i) Overdraft Account no. 13325015001541 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, G.N-12, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027; (ii) Current Account no. 13321132000024, maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, GN-12, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027; and, (iii) Current Account no.09332560001113 at HDFC Bank, Vishal Enclave, Delhi, of the petitioner; and, (b) the said attachment was affected on 9th January, 2020 and the period of one year, for which alone the said attachment, under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act can operate/have effect, has expired on 8th January, 2021. It is thus argued that the provisional attachment of the bank accounts impugned in this petition has lapsed and the respondents are bound under Section 83(2) to issue instructions to the banks, of lapsing of the attachment.

2. The counsel for the respondents has not controverted the aforesaid position and on enquiry states that no notice under Sections 73 & 74 of the CGST Act has been issued to the petitioner as yet. He however states that the petition may be disposed of, directing de-freezing of the attachment impugning which this petition was filed but preserving the rights of the respondents.

3. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have no right to continue the attachment under any other provision of law.

4. We are however not called upon in this petition to adjudicate whether any other attachment affected of the bank account is in accordance with law or not. As far as the attachment impugned in the writ petition is concerned, it is not in dispute that the same has lapsed.

5. We therefore dispose of this writ petition, directing the respondents to, on or before 29th January, 2021, issue instructions to the banks aforesaid, of lapsing of the attachment earlier affected and impugned in this petition. However if there is any other order of attachment of the same bank accounts, the same be served on the petitioner, through the counsel, on or before 29th January, 2021.

6. We clarify that even if the respondents, on or before 29th January, 2021 do not issue the instructions as aforesaid to the banks or do not serve on the petitioner through advocate any other order attaching the said bank accounts, the attachment effected on 9th January, 2020 of (i) Overdraft Account no. 13325015001541 at Oriental Bank of Commerce, G.N-12, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027; (ii) Current Account no. 13321132000024, maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, GN-12, Shivaji Enclave, Delhi-110027; and, (iii) Current Account no. 09332560001113 at HDFC Bank, Vishal Enclave, Delhi, shall stand quashed and the banks shall allow the petitioner to, after 29th January, 2021, operate the accounts.

The petition is disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

SANJEEV NARULA, J

JANUARY 21, 2021

Equivalent .