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

Facts

The appellant, M/S. GSS 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 during its pendency, the initial attachment order expired after one year. The appellant represented to the authorities to lift the attachment, but a fresh order of attachment was issued on 26.09.2022, valid for one year. The appellant filed an application to set aside this fresh order, which was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground of a fresh cause of action. The appellant preferred an appeal against this dismissal. During the appeal, the second attachment order also expired. The respondent Department submitted that the second attachment order has been lifted.

Held

The Court noted that the first order of attachment dated 27.09.2021 had lost its efficacy after one year. Subsequently, a fresh order of attachment was passed on 26.09.2022. During the pendency of the appeal, this second order of attachment also expired. The respondent Department, based on written instructions, confirmed that the second order of attachment had been lifted. 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 in light of these developments, rendering further adjudication on the merits of the attachment orders unnecessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the appellant's application seeking to set aside the second order of attachment dated 26.09.2022 was justified on the ground that it constituted a fresh cause of action, despite the pendency of the writ petition challenging the initial attachment order. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the second attachment order was a continuation of the initial illegal attachment and that the dismissal on the ground of a fresh cause of action was erroneous, especially since the original writ petition was pending. They sought to have the attachment order set aside. Contentions of the Respondent: The respondent authorities argued that the second attachment order was a new action and therefore 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.