Ms Abr Roadlines Private Limited vs. State Of Haryana And Ors

Held

The Court noted the submission by the respondents that the writ petition had become infructuous in view of the communication dated 15.10.2025 (Form GST DRC-23), which indicated that the respondent-bank had been duly informed to lift the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account. Consequently, the Court found no justification for the continuation of the present proceedings. Regarding the petitioner's claim for compensation for financial losses and business disruptions, 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 ABR Roadlines Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging an order dated 30.09.2025 passed by respondent No.3, which provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account. The respondents, State of Haryana and others, through their counsel, submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous. They referred to a communication dated 15.10.2025 (Form GST DRC-23) indicating that the respondent-bank had been informed to lift the attachment. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was entitled to compensation for financial losses and business disruptions caused by the attachment. The respondents' counsel repudiated this claim, asserting that the action was taken in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is rendered infructuous due to the subsequent communication to lift the provisional attachment of the bank account, as argued by the respondents. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for financial losses, business disruptions, and consequential damages arising from the provisional attachment, as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that despite the attachment being lifted, they are entitled to compensation for the damages suffered. The respondents contended that the action was taken in accordance with law and repudiated the petitioner's claim for compensation. They relied on the communication dated 15.10.2025 (Form GST DRC-23) to argue that the attachment has been ordered to be lifted, rendering the primary prayer of the writ petition moot.