Roop Charan Agarwal And 2 Others vs. Principal Additional Director General And 4 Others

Held

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, noting that an interim protection had been granted earlier, suspending the operation of the attachment order and allowing the petitioners to operate their bank accounts normally. It was brought to the Court's notice that the petitioners had appeared before the respondents, recorded their statements, and an inquiry was in progress and likely to be concluded soon. Given the petitioners' cooperation with the inquiry and the existing interim protection, the Court opined that keeping the writ petition pending would serve no fruitful purpose. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the ongoing inquiry expeditiously and in accordance with law, without insisting on the arrest of the petitioners until a final order is passed. The petitioners were also informed that they would have the right to take appropriate legal recourse, if required, subject to the outcome of the final orders. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioners, including a private limited company and its directors, filed a writ petition challenging the provisional attachment of their bank accounts by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI). The attachment was made under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, vide an order dated August 2, 2021. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare the action arbitrary and illegal, and to set aside the attachment. They also sought interim relief to operate their bank accounts. The High Court had previously granted an interim order on September 1, 2021, suspending the attachment and allowing normal operation of the bank accounts, which was continued subsequently. During the proceedings, it was stated that the petitioners had appeared before the respondents, recorded their statements, and an inquiry was in progress and likely to be concluded soon. The petitioners undertook to cooperate with the inquiry.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of bank accounts by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, was arbitrary and illegal, vitiated by non-application of mind and contrary to Supreme Court judgments. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the action of provisional attachment was arbitrary, illegal, vitiated by a total non-application of mind, and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court. They sought to set aside the attachment order and prevent interference with their operations. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the revenue (respondents 1 to 3). However, their action of issuing the provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, was the subject of challenge.