M/S. Sidhi Vinayak Ispat Private Limited And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The appellant, M/s. Sidhi Vinayak Ispat Private Limited, challenged an order of attachment of its bank accounts issued by the respondent authorities under Section 83 of the CGST Act on 27.09.2021. A writ petition was filed and entertained. The first attachment order lost its efficacy after one year. The appellant represented to the authorities to lift the attachment, but a fresh order of attachment was passed on 26.09.2022, valid for one year. An application to set aside this second order was dismissed by the impugned order, which the appellant appealed. During the appeal, the second attachment order also expired. The respondent Department stated that the second attachment order has been lifted based on written instructions.

Held

The Court noted that both the initial order of attachment dated 27.09.2021 and the subsequent order dated 26.09.2022 had lost their efficacy due to the lapse of one year. The respondent Department confirmed that the second order of attachment had been lifted based on written instructions. Consequently, as of the date of the judgment, there was no order of attachment on the appellant's bank accounts, and the appellant was permitted to operate them. The appeal and the writ petition were disposed of on this basis, rendering the issue of whether the second attachment constituted a fresh cause of action moot.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the appellant's application (CAN 1 of 2022) seeking to set aside the second order of attachment dated 26.09.2022 was justified, considering it was deemed a fresh cause of action, despite the pendency of the writ petition challenging the initial attachment. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the second attachment order was a continuation of the original challenge and that the dismissal on the ground of a fresh cause of action was erroneous. They sought to have the attachment order set aside. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent authorities argued that the second attachment order constituted a fresh cause of action, justifying the dismissal of the appellant's application. They relied on the powers conferred under Section 83 of the CGST Act.