VARDHMAN EXIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dtd. 14/7/2020 issued under Form GST DRC- 22 provisionally attaching the Petitioner's current Bank Account with IndusInd Bank Ltd under Sec. 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act'). Petitioner also seeks direction to the Respondents to de-freeze the Petitioner's bank account.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Sec. 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the order of provisional attachment of bank account ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of issuance of the order. She states that though the order of provisional attachment dtd. 14/7/2020 has ceased to have effect on 13/7/2021 yet the Petitioner is still not allowed to operate its bank account which had been provisionally attached by the impugned order. She relies on the order dtd. 22/11/2021 of this Court in M/s. Shri Dhan Laxmi Trade House Vs. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax W.P.(C) 13080-2021 where under similar circumstances the Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to de-freeze the current account of the Petitioner therein.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that the impugned order is not maintainable as it does not disclose pendency of any proceeding under Ss. 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74 of the GST Act. She points out that the Petitioner's bank account was provisionally attached on the ground of initiation of proceedings under Sec. 7 of the CGST Act, 2017. In support of her submissions, she relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771.