Pradeep Kumar Siddha vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Central Govt. Advocates And Ors

Held

The Court held that while the respondents' allegations and the findings in the Order-in-Original warranted protecting the revenue's interests, this protection should not deprive the petitioner of his valuable right to appeal. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner could not be allowed to deal with the funds in his Axis Bank account, but simultaneously recognized that preventing him from filing an appeal due to inability to make the pre-deposit would be unjust. To balance these competing interests, the Court directed Axis Bank to transfer the entire amount from the petitioner's bank account to the Registrar of the High Court. Subsequently, the Registrar was ordered to transfer Rs.8,76,564/- (this figure appears to be a typo in the judgment, likely intended to be 10% of Rs.87,65,646/-) to the second respondent to serve as the pre-deposit. The petitioner was granted four weeks from this transfer to file his appeal. The appellate authority was directed to accept the appeal, even in physical format if online filing was not possible, and to decide it on merits, without being influenced by the Court's prima facie observations. The balance amount was to be invested by the Registrar, subject to the orders in appeal. The Court also held that if the appeal was instituted within the stipulated period, the appellate authority must dispose of it on merits without considering the limitation issue, as the writ petition was filed within the original appeal limitation period.

Facts

The petitioner, Pradeep Kumar Siddha, challenged an Order-in-Original dated May 25, 2023, which placed a lien on his Axis Bank account for demanded dues of Rs.1,49,87,924/-. Previously, this Court had directed the respondents to deposit Rs.62,32,400/- (attached from the petitioner's bank account) into the Court and re-credit it to the petitioner's account, pending the Order-in-Original. The petitioner filed the current writ petition within the appeal limitation period. He argued that the lien prevented him from depositing the mandatory 10% pre-deposit of Rs.87,65,646/- (erroneously stated as Rs.8,76,564/- in paragraph 8 and 10 of the judgment) required to file an appeal, rendering the lien illegal. The respondents argued the petition was frivolous and an alternate remedy of appeal existed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the lien placed on the petitioner's bank account by the Order-in-Original dated May 25, 2023, illegally precludes the petitioner from filing an appeal against the said order by preventing him from making the mandatory pre-deposit, and thus warrants interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the lien on his bank account, as imposed by the Order-in-Original, made it impossible for him to arrange the required pre-deposit of 10% of the tax demand (Rs.87,65,646/-), which is a prerequisite for filing an appeal. He argued that this action by the revenue authorities was illegal and deprived him of his right to appeal. He relied on the principle that a party should not be deprived of a valuable right to appeal due to circumstances beyond their control or imposed by the revenue itself. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the writ petition was frivolous and that the petitioner had an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original. They referred to circumstances mentioned in the Order-in-Original, including allegations of the petitioner issuing fake invoices to facilitate bogus Input Tax Credit (ITC) under GST laws, suggesting serious issues regarding the petitioner's conduct.