Ms Greentech Minerals Private Limited Through Its Director Sri Amit Agarwal vs. The Principal Commissioner C G S T And C E

Held

The Court held that since the order of attachment, which formed the basis of the writ petitions, had been recalled by the respondent authorities during the pendency of the proceedings, nothing survived for adjudication in the present writ petitions. The Court noted the affidavit filed by the respondent CGST, which explicitly stated that the attachment order had been recalled on September 3, 2021. Consequently, the Court found no further purpose in continuing with the writ petitions. The ratio decidendi is that once the action under challenge is withdrawn or nullified by the authority that passed it, the writ petition challenging that action becomes infructuous. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petitions as nothing survived.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Greentech Steel Enterprises and M/s Greentech Minerals Private Limited, filed writ petitions before the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi challenging an order of attachment dated January 11, 2021, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), CGST & CX, Ranchi. This attachment order pertained to the bank accounts of both petitioners. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondents, the Principal Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Superintendent (Preventive) of CGST & CX, Ranchi, filed an affidavit stating that an order had been passed on September 3, 2021, recalling the attachment order concerning the petitioners' bank accounts. This recall order was common to both petitioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions survive for adjudication given that the impugned order of attachment has been recalled by the respondent authorities? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the writ petitions were filed challenging a specific order of attachment. They relied on the subsequent development where this attachment order was recalled, implying that the core issue raised in the petitions had been resolved. Revenue's Argument: The respondents, represented by the CGST authorities, confirmed through an affidavit that the attachment order had been recalled. They did not present any argument against the recall or for the continued adjudication of the petitions on merits, effectively conceding that the primary grievance was addressed.