M/S. Santram Shiwramdas And Ors. vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Cx Range Iv Central Division Kolkata North Commissionerate And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s Santram Shiwramdas & Ors., initially filed self-assessed returns under the Finance Act, 1994, but failed to pay the admitted service tax. The respondents, the Superintendent of CGST & CX and others, have recovered the admitted service tax. An ex parte adjudication order dated June 22, 2022, was passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994, for the tax period 2014-2015, concerning a principal amount of Rs. 3,65,128/-, which has also been recovered. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- was imposed by a separate adjudication order dated September 23, 2019, for the period October 2014 to June 2017, which has also been recovered. The petitioners challenged the continued attachment of their bank account.
Held
The Court noted that the petitioners had confined their challenge to prayer 'B' of the writ petition, which pertained to the bank account attachment. The respondents, on instruction, stated that there is no existing debit freeze on the petitioner's bank account with HDFC Bank. Furthermore, the respondents submitted that the letter dated January 31, 2023, which was reflected in the bank's communication, had already expired and should not be treated as an ongoing attachment order. Given these submissions and the limited scope of the petition, the Court found no impediment at that stage for HDFC Bank to permit the petitioner to operate its bank account. As no other issues survived, the writ petition was disposed of with these observations.
Key Issues
1. Whether the attachment of the petitioners' bank account can be permitted to continue, given that the admitted service tax and the principal amount under the adjudication order have already been recovered. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that since the admitted service tax and the principal amount of Rs. 3,65,128/- under the order in original dated June 22, 2022, have been recovered, and a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under a separate order dated September 23, 2019, has also been recovered, the attachment of their bank account should not be allowed to continue. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by Ms. Mukherjee, initially sought accommodation to take instructions. Subsequently, on instruction, they submitted that there is no current debit freeze on the petitioner's HDFC bank account and that a letter dated January 31, 2023, referenced by the bank, had spent its force and should not be construed as an order of attachment.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
9 02.07.2025 sb Ct 5
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE
WPA 1423 of 2025
M/s Santram Shiwramdas & Ors. Versus The Superintendent of CGST & CX, Range-IV, Central Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate & Ors.
Mr. Indranil Banerjee Mr. Subrata Mukherjee
…. For the petitioners
Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee
Ms. Manasi Mukherjee
… For the respondent Nos. 1 to 4
Mr. Anjan Chakraborty
Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty
….for the respondent No. 5
This Court by an order dated 21st April, 2025 was inter alia pleased to record as follows:- “1. The petitioners seek to restrict the challenge in the writ petition to prayer-‘B’ only.
Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner initially filed self-assessed return under the Finance Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). Unfortunately, at the time of filing such returns, the admitted service tax was not paid. According to him, the aforesaid amount which the petitioners were liable to pay on account of service tax has already been recovered by the respondents. He would submit that independent of the above an order in original was passed under
2
Section 73 of the said Act in respect of the tax period 2014-2015. The petitioners could not appropriately respond to the show-cause and as such an ex parte adjudication order dated 22nd June, 2022 had been passed.
Challenging such order, the appeal has been filed upon payment of 10% of the pre-deposit along with an application for condonation of delay. Such appeal is yet to be heard as the delay has not yet been condoned. According to him, the principal amount covered under the order in original being a sum of Rs. 3,65,128/- has already been recovered from the petitioners. This apart, a penalty was also imposed on the petitioners to the extent of Rs. 60,000/- in connection with a separate adjudication order dated 23rd September, 2019 in respect of tax period October 2014 to June 2017. According to him, the aforesaid sum has also been recovered from the petitioners.
Having regard thereto, he would submit that the attachment of the petitioners’ bank account cannot be permitted to continue any further.
Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the respondents prays for an accommodation to take appropriate instructions in the matter.
List this matter for further hearing on 30th April, 2025 in daily supplementary list.”
Today, Ms. Mukherjee, learned advocate representing the
3 CGST authorities, on instruction, would submit that as of today there is no debit freeze issued by the respondents in respect of the bank account of the petitioner maintained with the HDFC bank. Ms. Mukherjee also submits in Court today that with reference to the letter dated 31st January, 2023, as reflected in the letter issued by HDFC bank forming annexure P-11 of the writ petition, the same has already spent its force and should not be construed as an order of attachment any further.
Having regard to the aforesaid and the petitioner having confined the reliefs in the petition to prayer ‘B’ only, as noted above, I am of the view that there cannot be any impediment at this stage for the HDFC bank in permitting the petitioner to operate its bank account maintained with HDFC Bank, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata.
Since no other issue survives in the writ petition, with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.