Sushil Jaiswal Alias Sushil Shaw vs. The Supdt, Anti Evasion Dept And Ors

Held

The Court did not grant any relief to the petitioner in the writ petition itself. Instead, it provided liberty to the petitioner to make a representation before the concerned authority under the relevant provisions of law within seven days from the date of the order. The Court directed that if such a representation is made within the stipulated time, the authority shall consider and dispose of it in accordance with law. This disposal is to be by passing a reasoned and speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representatives within three weeks from the date of the representation. The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all points in his representation that were raised in the writ petition. Since the writ petition was disposed of at the motion stage, the allegations made in the petition were deemed to be denied by the respondents.

Facts

The petitioner, Sushil Jaiswal @ Sushil Shaw, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the CGST authority (Respondent No. 1) in freezing his bank account. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the bank account was frozen without any prior notice being issued to him. The respondent revenue authority contended that a statutory remedy was available to the petitioner under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, allowing him to approach the concerned authority for redressal within seven days of the attachment. The revenue also argued that the petitioner's claim of not receiving a copy of the attachment order was unsustainable, as he would have received information from the bank.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account by the CGST authority without prior notice is legally sustainable, particularly in light of the availability of a statutory remedy under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules? The petitioner argued that the freezing of his bank account was arbitrary and illegal as it was done without issuing any notice. He contended that this action prejudiced his ability to conduct business. The revenue, represented by Mr. Kundalia, argued that the petitioner had a clear statutory remedy under Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, which allows for approaching the authority within seven days of attachment. The revenue further contended that the petitioner's assertion of not receiving the attachment order was not a valid ground to bypass the statutory remedy, as he would have been informed by the bank.