M/S Mj Bizcrafts LLP Through Its Partner Rajender Kumar vs. Central Goods And Services Tax Delhi South Commissionerate Through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s MJ Bizcrafts LLP, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 10th May, 2024, issued under FORM GST DRC-22, which seized the Petitioner's bank account. The Petitioner contended that the impugned letter had expired as the one-year validity period prescribed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, had passed. The Respondent revenue authority, represented by the Central Goods and Service Tax Delhi South Commissionerate, submitted that a fresh DRC-22 had been issued. The Petitioner also stated that an appeal against the Order in Original dated 31st January, 2025, had been filed, and the pre-deposit had been made.

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. The reasoning was that the Petitioner had already filed an appeal against the Order in Original dated 31st January, 2025, and had also made the pre-deposit. While the Petitioner argued that the impugned letter dated 10th May, 2024, had expired under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, the Respondent stated that a fresh DRC-22 had been issued. Given these developments, the Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to challenge the fresh DRC-22. The Court also directed that a copy of the fresh DRC-22, which was stated to have not been served, be served to the Petitioner within one week via the provided mobile number and email address, and also uploaded on the GST portal. No specific finding was made on the expiry of the original DRC-22, as the petition was dismissed on the grounds of being infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned letter dated 10th May, 2024, issued under FORM GST DRC-22, seeking to seize the Petitioner's bank account, had expired by efflux of time, as per Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the validity of the impugned letter had expired as the prescribed one-year period under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, had passed, rendering the seizure of their bank account invalid. Revenue's Contention: The Respondent revenue authority contended that a fresh DRC-22 had been issued, implying that the previous one might have expired or been superseded. The Petitioner also stated that an appeal against the Order in Original dated 31st January, 2025, had been filed and pre-deposit made.