Mukti Binod Das vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Mukti Binod Das, filed a writ petition challenging an order in original dated January 29, 2013, passed under the Finance Act, 1994, and an order dated June 21, 2023, freezing his bank account. The petitioner contended that the order in original was never properly served, despite repeated requests. The revenue authority (CGST) disputed this, claiming the order was furnished. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was served with the order in original via a forwarding letter dated July 4, 2023. The petitioner expressed willingness to file a statutory appeal against the order in original and offered to pay the full tax amount in cash, with a bank guarantee for the balance penalty and interest.

Held

The Court allowed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal against the order in original, despite the disputed service. The limitation period for filing the appeal will be computed from July 5, 2023, the date the order in original was furnished to the petitioner during the writ proceedings. Regarding the freezing of the bank account, the Court directed that the debit transaction freeze would be lifted if the respondent bank pays the tax, including education cess, amounting to Rs. 21,94,117/- from the petitioner's account within three days of the order's communication. Additionally, the petitioner must furnish a bank guarantee, satisfactory to the respondent authorities, for the penalty and interest within three days after the bank makes the tax payment. Upon compliance, the bank will allow the petitioner to operate the account. All further actions by revenue authorities will be contingent on the appeal's outcome. The Court clarified that filing the appeal is conditional upon compliance with these directions, and any payment made under this order is subject to the appeal's final decision. The bank's compliance is subject to its terms with the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was properly served with the order in original dated January 29, 2013, under the Finance Act, 1994, and if not, what is the consequence for availing the appellate remedy? - Petitioner's argument: The order in original was never properly served, hindering their ability to file an appeal. They only received it during the writ proceedings. - Revenue's argument: The order in original was furnished to the petitioner at the relevant time. 2. What relief can be granted regarding the freezing of the petitioner's bank account, considering the disputed service of the order in original and the petitioner's willingness to comply with conditions for appeal? - Petitioner's argument: The freezing of the bank account is unjustified due to non-service of the original order and they are willing to pay tax and furnish security for penalty and interest to enable appeal. - Revenue's argument: Not explicitly recorded, but impliedly supported the freezing order pending resolution of the tax demand.