M/S M V Manpower Services PVT. LTD & Ors. vs. Directorate General Of GST Intelligence Dggi Delhi Zonal Unit Through Its Additional Director Gener

Facts

The Petitioner, M/S M V MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD & ORS., approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They challenged an order dated 28th April, 2025, passed by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Respondent No. 1. This order attached the Petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in terms of Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Petitioner submitted a representation to the DGGI on 02nd May, 2025, seeking defreezing of the bank account to facilitate payment of salaries and other operational expenses. The DGGI, through its counsel, assured that the representation would be duly considered and decided.

Held

The Court directed that the representation filed by the Petitioner with the DGGI, seeking the defreezing of their bank account, shall be decided by the DGGI by 31st May, 2025. The Court did not delve into the merits of the attachment order itself but focused on facilitating a decision on the Petitioner's representation. The reasoning was based on the assurance given by the Revenue that the representation would be considered. The operative direction was to ensure a timely decision on the Petitioner's request. No specific finding was made on the validity of the attachment order, as the matter was disposed of based on the undertaking to decide the representation. The Court explicitly stated that all rights and remedies are left open, implying that further legal recourse would be available if the representation was not decided favorably or in a timely manner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attachment of the Petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, is valid and justified, considering the Petitioner's need to meet operational expenses like salary payments? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the attachment of their bank account by the DGGI was causing severe financial hardship, preventing them from meeting essential operational needs, including the payment of salaries to their employees. They contended that defreezing the account was necessary for their continued functioning. Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue, represented by the DGGI, did not present detailed arguments against the Petitioner's plea for defreezing. Instead, they submitted that the representation made by the Petitioner would be duly considered and decided by the DGGI.