Aamir Traders Through Proprietor Babubhai Ganibhai Nathani vs. State Of Gujarat

Facts

The petitioner, Aamir Traders, through its proprietor Babubhai Ganibhai Nathani, filed a Special Civil Application challenging a direction issued by Respondent No. 2 on January 18, 2021, to provisionally attach and debit freeze its current account maintained with Respondent No. 3. The petitioner sought to quash this direction and stay its operation. The petition was admitted on April 6, 2021. Subsequently, on January 19, 2022, the Authority passed a new order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, provisionally attaching the same bank account for a period of one year. This new order was served to the petitioner's advocate.

Held

The Court held that the challenge in the present petition would not survive due to the subsequent order dated January 19, 2022, which provisionally attached the bank account for a period of one year. The Court reasoned that the new order superseded the previous one, making the original prayer for quashing the January 18, 2021, order infructuous. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the case on merits. The rule was discharged, but the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh petition on available grounds. No specific finding was made on the validity or legality of either attachment order on their merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the challenge to the provisional attachment order dated January 18, 2021, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, survives in light of a subsequent, fresh provisional attachment order dated January 19, 2022, for a period of one year. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the initial order of attachment. The subsequent order, while also an attachment, is a new action that may have its own grounds for challenge, but the original petition was aimed at the first order. Revenue/State's contention: The learned AGP for the State Authorities submitted that a latest order dated January 19, 2022, had been passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, which provisionally attached the bank account for one year. This rendered the challenge to the earlier order infructuous.