M/S.Ecmas Resins (P)LTD. vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Sales Tax CT And GST Puri

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Ecmas Resins (P) Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order attaching its bank account. The Petitioner contended that this attachment order was passed despite an existing interim order from this Court, dated 13th October 2015, extended on 6th November 2015, in W.P.(C) Nos.7457 and 7458 of 2015. This earlier interim order had stayed the operation of an assessment order and was still in effect. The Court noted this contention on 1st December 2020 and continued the interim order on 9th December 2020. The Opposite Parties, including the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax, CT and GST, Puri, had not filed any reply by the date of the judgment. The Court observed that the impugned order of attachment appeared to have been passed in disregard of the Court's interim order.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of attachment of the Petitioner's bank account, marked as Annexure-4, was indeed passed in contravention of the interim order previously granted by the High Court in W.P.(C) Nos.7457 and 7458 of 2015. The Court found that the attachment order was made 'in the teeth of' the existing interim order. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order of attachment. The Court further directed that it would be open for the Department to take further steps as may be necessitated depending on the final outcome of the aforementioned writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos.7457 and 7458 of 2015). The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order attaching the Petitioner's bank account (Annexure-4) was passed in violation of the interim order dated 13th October 2015, extended on 6th November 2015, passed in W.P.(C) Nos.7457 and 7458 of 2015, which stayed the operation of the assessment order? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the bank account attachment order was passed despite the subsisting interim order from this Court, which explicitly stayed the operation of the assessment order. The Petitioner relied on the Court's previous interim orders as evidence of the violation. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the Opposite Parties (Revenue/State).