M/S Sunshine Exim (Through Its Partner Vishvas Ganpat Gaikwad) vs. Directortae General Of GST Intelligence (Through Its Additional Director General) & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sunshine Exim, through its partner Vishvas Ganpat Gaikwad, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 26.06.2023, passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order directed the attachment of the petitioner's bank account maintained with Punjab National Bank at its Mumbai Branch. The order was issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit. The petitioner noted that neither the bank account nor the authority that passed the impugned order were located within the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Held

The Delhi High Court held that it was not apposite to entertain the present writ petition. The Court reasoned that the impugned order, which attached the petitioner's bank account, was passed by an authority located outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi (Jaipur Zonal Unit). Furthermore, the bank account itself was located outside Delhi (Mumbai Branch). Consequently, the Court concluded that it lacked the appropriate territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. The Court clarified that this decision would not prevent the petitioner from approaching courts with the correct jurisdiction. The petition was disposed of with these observations.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, when the petitioner's bank account and the issuing authority are located outside the National Capital Territory of Delhi? The petitioner argued that the Delhi High Court should entertain the petition. The revenue, represented by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence and the bank, contended that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. They likely argued that the cause of action did not arise within Delhi, as the attachment order was passed by an authority in Jaipur and concerned a bank account in Mumbai. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's arguments beyond implying a jurisdictional challenge.