M/S. Galaxy International vs. Union Of INDIA (Thru The Secretary, Ministry Of Law And Justice, Dept. Of Legal Affairs ) And Ors

Held

The Court noted the Revenue's submission that the impugned notice/order dated 1st June 2022 would cease to operate by virtue of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. The Revenue also brought to the Court's attention that a fresh attachment order had been issued, which was not the subject of the present petition. Furthermore, an order dated 7th March 2023 had been passed, rejecting the Petitioner's objections. In light of these submissions, particularly the statement that the impugned notice would cease to operate, the Court was of the opinion that further adjudication of the present petition was not required. The Court explicitly kept open all contentions of the parties, including those related to the fresh attachment and the order dated 7th March 2023. No specific finding was made on the validity of the initial attachment beyond the Revenue's statement that it would cease to operate.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Galaxy International, filed a writ petition challenging a notice/order dated 1st June 2022 issued by Respondent No. 2. This order provisionally attached the Petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The Revenue, represented by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, stated that the impugned notice would cease to operate by virtue of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. However, the Revenue also indicated that a fresh attachment order had been issued, which was not the subject of the present petition. The Revenue further drew the Court's attention to an order dated 7th March 2023, which rejected the Petitioner's objections pursuant to directions from this Court in a previous writ petition (Writ Petition No. 298 of 2023).

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned notice/order dated 1st June 2022, provisionally attaching the Petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, has ceased to operate in light of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, as contended by the Revenue. The Petitioner's argument is not explicitly recorded, but the challenge to the attachment order implies a dispute over its validity or continued effect. The Revenue's contention is that the attachment under the impugned notice would cease to operate. 2. Whether the Court should proceed with further adjudication of the petition, given the Revenue's submission regarding the cessation of the impugned notice and the existence of a fresh attachment order and a subsequent order rejecting objections. The Petitioner likely sought relief against the attachment. The Revenue argued that further adjudication of the present petition is not called for.