S K Gupta And Sons Retail Private Limited vs. The Additional Director

Facts

The petitioner, S K Gupta And Sons Retail Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order of provisional attachment of its bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the attachment order was operative for one year, but the bank accounts had not been defreezed. The Additional Director, Directorate General of GST Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, passed the order under challenge. The petition was initially listed for hearing, and the Court noted that if Section 83 of the Act was not complied with, the Additional Director was to remain present. Subsequently, communications dated 23.05.2025 were produced by the respondent, indicating that the bank accounts had been defreezed.

Held

The Court noted that the petition was filed challenging the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner's primary grievance was that the bank accounts had not been defreezed despite the attachment order being operative for one year. The Court was informed that communications dated 23.05.2025 were produced by the respondent, indicating that the Nodal Officer/General Manager of Axis Bank, Jaipur, was directed to defreeze the mentioned bank account numbers. In light of these communications, the Court found that the grievance raised by the petitioner had been addressed. Therefore, the petition was disposed of as infructuous. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail other remedies if any surviving grievance remained.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, was validly continued beyond its one-year operative period, and if not, whether the bank accounts should have been defreezed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that as per Section 83 of the Act, the attachment order is operative for a period of one year, and despite this period having elapsed, the bank accounts remained attached and were not defreezed. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not explicitly state their contention regarding the duration of the attachment order. However, they produced communications indicating the defreezing of the bank accounts, suggesting compliance with the petitioner's grievance. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue on this point.