Baba Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Sudhir Kumar Choudhary vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Baba Enterprises, through its Proprietor Sudhir Kumar Choudhary, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court. The petition challenged two letters, dated March 17, 2020, and March 17, 2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (D.C.C.T.), South Circle, Ranchi. These letters directed the Branch Managers of Allahabad Bank and Canara Bank, respectively, to freeze the petitioner's bank accounts. The petitioner had approached the authority for revocation of these directions but received no response. The primary relief sought was the quashing of these freezing orders.

Held

The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the arguments presented by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. This request was made on the ground that the petitioner's grievances had been redressed during the pendency of the writ petition. Consequently, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the petition. No specific finding was made on the legality or otherwise of the freezing orders issued by the D.C.C.T. South Circle, Ranchi. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts by the D.C.C.T. South Circle, Ranchi, vide letters dated March 17, 2020, and March 17, 2022, was arbitrary and without due process, especially in the absence of a response to the petitioner's revocation application? The petitioner argued that the freezing of their bank accounts was an unjustified action by the respondent no. 5, D.C.C.T. South Circle, Ranchi. They contended that despite submitting an application for revocation of these freezing orders, no response was received from the concerned authority, leaving their grievances unaddressed. The petitioner sought an appropriate writ to quash these orders and restore access to their accounts. The respondents, represented by Mr. P.A.S Pati, G.A.-II, did not present any specific arguments as the matter was withdrawn by the petitioner.