Khushi Media vs. Padg, Dggi, Gurugram Zonal Unit

Facts

The petitioner, Khushi Media, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated April 29, 2024, passed by the Principal Additional Director General, DGGI-GZU, Gurugram. This order provisionally attached the petitioner's current bank account. The petitioner had filed objections to this attachment under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. As these objections remained undecided, the petitioner approached the High Court. Subsequently, the petitioner's objections were decided by a speaking order. In light of this development, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the present petition.

Held

The Court noted that the petitioner had filed objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, against the provisional attachment of its bank account. Since these objections were not decided, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. However, the petitioner subsequently stated that its objections had been decided by a speaking order. In view of this development, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the present petition with liberty to assail the speaking order and avail suitable remedies. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The Court clarified that this order would not preclude the petitioner from availing other remedies available in accordance with law. No specific issue was left undecided, as the petition was withdrawn by the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to challenge the provisional attachment of its bank account when its objections filed under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, were pending adjudication by the revenue authority? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the present petition was filed because the revenue authority had failed to decide its objections to the provisional attachment of its bank account. The petitioner sought to avail remedies against the attachment order. Respondent's contention: The respondent (Principal ADG, DGGI-GZU, Gurugram) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment regarding the maintainability of the petition or the merits of the attachment. The judgment notes that the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition after its objections were decided.