Siam Mktg.Co vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax-GST, Delhi West, & Anr.
Held
The Court noted the submission by the learned counsel for the respondent (CBIC) that one year had lapsed from the date of the impugned orders, rendering them no longer operative. Consequently, the Court found that the petitioners' grievances stood addressed. The Court directed the concerned banks not to further interdict the operation of the bank accounts on account of the impugned orders. The petitions were disposed of with these directions. The ratio decidendi is that orders passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, for freezing bank accounts, lapse after one year and cannot be enforced thereafter. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioners filed writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging orders passed by the respondents freezing their bank accounts. The freezing of these accounts was done under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitions were filed in late 2022. The respondents, represented by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), stated that the impugned orders had lapsed as more than one year had passed since their issuance. The petitioners sought relief from the continued interdiction of their bank accounts.
Key Issues
1. Whether the bank accounts of the petitioners, which were frozen under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, remain validly frozen after the expiry of one year from the date of the impugned orders? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the continued freezing of their bank accounts beyond the statutory period was illegal and sought the unfreezing of their accounts. They relied on the implicit understanding that such orders have a limited validity period. Revenue's contention: The respondent (CBIC) contended that the impugned orders freezing the bank accounts had lapsed by efflux of time, as one year had elapsed from the date of their issuance. They acknowledged that the orders were no longer operative.
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (4 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2023
The petitioners have filed the present petitions inter alia impugning the orders passed by the respondents freezing their respective bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Mr. Aditya Singla, learned counsel for the respondent, states that since one year has lapsed from the date of the impugned orders, the same have lapsed and are no longer operative.
In view of the above, the petitioners’ grievances stand addressed.
The concerned banks are directed not to further interdict the operation of the bank accounts on account of the impugned orders.
The petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. VIBHU BAKHRU,
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.