Ankur Garg vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Ankur Garg, filed a writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash provisional attachment orders dated January 7, 2022 (Annexures P-4 and P-5). These orders, passed by the respondents (Principal Commissioner, CGST and others), provisionally attached the petitioner's shares, gold bonds, and immovable property. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents informed the Court that a fresh attachment order was passed on January 6, 2023, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The earlier attachment orders dated January 7, 2022, had expired.

Held

The Court held that since the earlier attachment orders dated January 7, 2022, had expired and a fresh attachment order was passed on January 6, 2023, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, there was no subsisting cause of action in the present writ petition. The Court reasoned that the relief sought by the petitioner was against the expired orders, and the subsequent order created a new situation. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. The Court did not decide on the merits of the attachment itself or the validity of the fresh order. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition is maintainable when the impugned attachment orders have expired and a fresh attachment order has been passed. (Question of law) Contentions: Petitioner: The petitioner sought to quash the earlier attachment orders. However, the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner regarding the validity of the earlier orders or the necessity of the fresh order. Respondents: The respondents argued that a fresh attachment order has been passed on January 6, 2023, rendering the earlier attachment orders defunct and thus the writ petition concerning those orders has become infructuous. They relied on the fact that the earlier orders had come to an end.