M/S Osiya Metal Industries (Through Its Proprietor Sh Subham Agarwal vs. Director General, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence (Through Its Additiona

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Osiya Metal Industries, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 02.05.2024, passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act/DGST Act, which provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner had submitted an objection/representation under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules/DGST Rules, but it had not been considered by the respondents. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence (DGGI) was the respondent authority.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed an objection/representation under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules/DGST Rules, which had not yet been considered by the respondents. The respondents, through their counsel, assured the Court that an order would be passed on the petitioner's objection within four weeks. The Court accepted this statement and bound the respondents to it. Consequently, the Court directed that the concerned authority must provide the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before passing any order concerning the filed objection/representation. The Court disposed of the petition with these directions, implying that the provisional attachment would remain subject to the outcome of the consideration of the petitioner's representation and the subsequent order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to consider the petitioner's objection/representation filed under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules/DGST Rules, thereby violating principles of natural justice and statutory provisions? The petitioner argued that their representation under Rule 159(5) had not been considered, necessitating judicial intervention. The respondents, represented by Mr. Tripathi, stated that the concerned authority would pass an order on the petitioner's objection within four weeks from the date of the hearing. The respondents did not otherwise contest the petitioner's claim regarding the non-consideration of their representation.