BharatTaxGST

M/S Sree Metaliks LTD, Keonjhar. vs. Assistant Commnr CGST And Central Excise, Keonjhar.

Original PDF →
WP(C)/35212/2023HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01086209202301 November 2023Bench: DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI (ACJ),MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner sought to quash the attachment of its bank account. The petitioner had made a representation to the authorities regarding its grievance.

Held

The High Court directed the concerned authority to consider the petitioner's representation. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.

Key Issues

Whether the bank account attachment was justified and if the petitioner's representation should be considered by the authorities.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.35212 of 2023 M/s. Sree Metaliks Ltd. ….. Petitioner Mr. S. Ray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. K.K. Sahoo, Advocate Vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST and Central Excise, Keonjhar Division & Others ….. Opposite Parties Mr. R.S. Chimanka, Sr. Standing Counsel along with Mr. A. Kedia, Jr. Standing Counsel CORAM: ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DR. B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER 01.11.2023 Order No.

01.

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2.

Heard.

3.

The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “In the context aforesaid, it is therefore most humbly prayed that your Lordship would graciously be pleased to: (i) Call for the records; (ii) Issue Rule Nisi Calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the order of attachment of the Petitioner’s Bank Account at ICICI Bank, Gurgaon Dronacharya Branch, New Delhi under Annexure-1 shall not be quashed; And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, then the rule may be made absolute; (iii) And further Your lordships may be pleased to pass such other order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper;”

4.

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that highlighting his grievance, the Petitioner has made representation/letter to Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure-14 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time.

5.

Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.2 to consider the representation/letter filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-14, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

Laxmikant (DR. B.R. SARANGI)

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.S. RAMAN)

JUDGE

Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.