Ms Target Time Logistics Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court noted the communication dated 15.10.2025, which indicated that the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account had been lifted. Consequently, the Court found no justification for the continuation of the present proceedings, rendering the writ petition infructuous. Regarding the petitioner's claim for compensation for financial losses, business disruptions, and other consequential damages, the Court held that it was open to the petitioner to avail such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter or the petitioner's entitlement to any compensation. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Target Time Logistics Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3, which provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account. The State of Haryana and others were the respondents. During the proceedings, the counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 informed the Court that the writ petition had been rendered infructuous, referencing Form GST DRC-23 dated 15.10.2025. It was stated that the respondent-bank had been communicated to lift the attachment. The petitioner's counsel contended that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for financial losses and business disruptions. The respondents repudiated this claim, asserting their action was in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is infructuous in light of the communication dated 15.10.2025 regarding the lifting of the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that despite the attachment being lifted, they are entitled to compensation for financial losses, business disruptions, and other consequential damages incurred due to the provisional attachment. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents, represented by the State of Haryana and others, argued that the writ petition is rendered infructuous based on the communication dated 15.10.2025 (Form GST DRC-23), indicating the attachment has been ordered to be lifted. They also contended that their original action of attachment was taken in accordance with the law and repudiated the petitioner's claim for compensation.