M/S Blk Industries vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s BLK Industries, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated March 7, 2024, which provisionally attached its bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. The respondents, represented by the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and others, informed the Court that the petitioner's request for the removal of the provisional attachment was rejected by an order dated March 28, 2024. The petitioner's counsel stated that this subsequent order had not yet been communicated. The respondents further submitted that speed post sent to the petitioner's registered address was returned with the endorsement "no such entity exists at the said address". The Court directed the respondents to serve a copy of the order on the petitioner at their residential address and through their counsel.

Held

The Court did not decide on the validity of the provisional attachment or the rejection of the petitioner's request for its removal. The petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition, reserving the right to file a fresh petition to challenge the order dated March 28, 2024. In light of this request, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with the liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh petition. The Court directed the respondents to serve a copy of the order dated March 28, 2024, on the petitioner at their residential address and through their counsel. No specific finding was made on the merits of the provisional attachment or the rejection order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act is valid. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to impugn the order of provisional attachment of its bank accounts. The petitioner also stated that the order rejecting its request for removal of attachment, dated March 28, 2024, had not yet been communicated to it. Respondents' Contention: The respondents submitted that the provisional attachment was made in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act. They further stated that the petitioner's request for removal of the provisional attachment was rejected by an order dated March 28, 2024. The respondents also noted that communication to the petitioner's registered address was unsuccessful.