Subham Traders vs. Additional Director General

Facts

The petitioner, Subham Traders, filed a writ application challenging an order of provisional attachment of its bank account dated September 26, 2019, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the one-year statutory period for this attachment had elapsed. Subsequently, another order of provisional attachment dated September 30, 2021, was issued for the same bank accounts, which the petitioner contended was a violation of Section 83. The petitioner also sought copies of documents seized during search proceedings under Section 67(5). The respondents were the Additional Director General and other revenue authorities. The amount in dispute was not explicitly stated. The procedural history involved the issuance of two provisional attachment orders and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.

Held

The Court noted that the respondents, through the learned Assistant Solicitor General, had presented letters dated 17.11.2021, addressed to the branch managers of the banks where the petitioner held accounts. These letters informed the banks that the writ-applicant would be permitted to operate its bank accounts. Consequently, as of the date of the order, there was no existing order of provisional attachment on any of the petitioner's bank accounts. Given this development, the Court found that nothing further required adjudication in the matter. The issue regarding the validity of the earlier attachment orders and the request for documents seized during search proceedings were rendered moot by the subsequent allowance of operation of the bank accounts. The Court did not explicitly decide on the legality of the second attachment order or the entitlement to documents, as the situation had resolved with the lifting of the attachment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of provisional attachment dated 26.09.2019, issued under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, is liable to be set aside on the ground that the statutory period of one year has elapsed. 2. Whether the subsequent order of provisional attachment dated 30.09.2021, concerning the same bank accounts, constitutes a violation of Section 83 of the CGST Act. 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive copies of documents seized during search proceedings as per Section 67(5) of the CGST Act. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the first provisional attachment order had expired by efflux of time, rendering it invalid. They further contended that issuing a second attachment order for the same accounts was a clear violation of the provisions of Section 83. The petitioner also sought the release of seized documents. Revenue's Arguments: The learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondents brought to the court's attention letters dated 17.11.2021, addressed to the bank managers, informing them that the writ-applicant would be permitted to operate the bank accounts. The respondents did not explicitly argue on the validity of the attachment orders themselves but presented information about the subsequent allowance of operation of bank accounts.