White Opal Expo Trade PVT. LTD. vs. The Principal Addi. Director General Of GST And Ors
Held
The Court held that the order directing the freezing of the bank account, dated February 1, 2021, would be deemed to have lapsed. Consequently, the bank account frozen under that order stands defreezed, as prayed by the petitioner. The Court clarified that it had not considered whether any further action had been undertaken by the respondents. If further action was taken, parties were at liberty to pursue it. Regarding prayer clause (b), the petitioner was directed to make a representation to the Authority, which was to consider it and decide on the application for recalling the caution notice in accordance with law, preferably within six weeks of the representation being made. The writ petition was disposed of.
Facts
The petitioner, White Opal Expo Trade Pvt. Ltd., assailed the action of the respondents, the Principal Additional Director General of GST & Ors., in freezing its bank account. The bank account was frozen on February 1, 2021. The petitioner contended that under Section 83 of the CGST Act, such an attachment cannot extend beyond one year. The High Court considered the date of the freezing order and the statutory period.
Key Issues
1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank account, initiated on February 1, 2021, is valid beyond one year as per Section 83 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Section 83 of the CGST Act limits the duration of attachment of bank accounts to one year. Therefore, the continued freezing of their account beyond this period is illegal. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents regarding the validity of the freezing order beyond one year.
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WPNo.46002022.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4600 OF 2022 White Opal Expo Trade Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner Versus The Principal Additional Director General of GST & Ors. … Respondents Adv. Nirmal Pagaria, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. J. B. Mishra a/w. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, Advocate for the Respondent/UOI. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ. DATED : APRIL 18, 2022 P.C.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner is assailing the action of the respondents of freezing the bank account of the petitioner Company. The same, according to the petitioner, is freezed on 1st February 2021. 2. It is contended that under Section 83 of the CGST Act, the attachment cannot be for more than one year. The action, it appears that, of freezing the bank account is dated 1st February 2021. 3. In light of that it shall be deemed that the order directing freezing of the account has now lapsed and the account freezed under the order dated 1st February 21 stands defreezed as prayed in prayer clause (a). Gaikwad RD 1/2
WPNo.46002022.doc
It is made cl
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.