M/S. Arif Fashion House Through Proprietor Shri Shekh Arif Abidhusen vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Law And Justice, Dept. Of Legal Affairs And Ors.
Held
The Court noted that on February 17, 2021, the respondents produced a letter dated February 16, 2021, issued by the Principal Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai South Commissionerate. This letter was addressed to the Branch Manager of the Union Bank of India, Duncan Road Branch, directing the unfreezing of the petitioner's bank account. In light of this development, the Court observed that the petitioner's grievance stood redressed. The Court directed respondent No. 4 (the bank) to forthwith release the bank account from attachment, if it had not already been done. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis. No specific provision regarding the time limit for attachment was discussed or relied upon in the final decision, as the issue became infructuous due to the respondents' action.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Arif Fashion House, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the attachment of its bank account (No. 379801010296878) by respondents No. 2 and 3. The attachment was made effective from June 12, 2019. The petitioner's primary contention was that more than one year had passed since the attachment, and therefore, the statutory time limit for continuing such an attachment had expired. The respondents are the Union of India and other relevant GST authorities, and respondent No. 4 is the bank where the petitioner's account is maintained. The matter was listed for hearing on February 17, 2021.
Key Issues
1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, effective from June 12, 2019, is liable to be set aside on the ground that the statutory time limit for continuing such an attachment has expired, as argued by the petitioner? The petitioner contended that the attachment had been in effect for over a year, implying a violation of a time limit for such measures. The respondents' arguments are not recorded in the judgment. The issue hinges on the interpretation and application of any relevant provisions governing the duration of bank account attachments under GST law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
(11)-WP-139-21.doc. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.139 OF 2021 M/s. Arif Fashion House ..Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors.
..Respondents Ms. Yogita V. Gogar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Amol Joshi, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3. CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN &
MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2021 P.C.
Heard Ms. Yogita V. Gogar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Amol Joshi for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. On 20.01.2021, we had passed the following order encapsulating the grievance of the petitioner :- “2. Petitioner is aggrieved by attachment of its bank account No.379801010296878 maintained with respondent No.4 by respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Contention is that the attachment was made effective w.e.f. 12.06.2019. More than one year has lapsed; therefore, the time limit for continuing with such attachment has expired.” BGP.
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.