Gulati Enterprises vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

Held

The Court noted the submission by the petitioners' counsel that they wished to withdraw the instant writ petitions to file comprehensive writ petitions. This was to bring to the fore the alleged infraction of law by the respondents through the repeated issuance of provisional attachment orders. The Court was informed that the initial petitions challenged orders dated August 13, 2019, followed by subsequent sets of orders in July 2020 and July/August 2021. In light of the petitioner's request, the Court dismissed the instant writ petitions as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court with comprehensive writ petitions, stating that the validity of any such future petitions would be examined as per law. No specific findings were made on the merits of the provisional attachment orders themselves.

Facts

The petitioners, Gulati Enterprises, Parvinder Gulati, and Tarun Gulati, filed writ petitions challenging provisional attachment orders issued by the GST authorities. Initially, the petitions assailed provisional attachment orders dated August 13, 2019. Subsequently, after a period of one year, a new set of provisional attachment orders was issued in July 2020, followed by yet another set dated July 27, 2021/August 4, 2021. The petitioners sought to withdraw the current writ petitions to file a comprehensive petition addressing the repeated issuance of provisional attachment orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the repeated issuance of provisional attachment orders by the GST authorities constitutes an infraction of law, warranting a comprehensive challenge. (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning the procedural propriety and legality of repeated actions under the GST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that the respondents have committed an infraction of law by repeatedly serving provisional attachment orders. They sought to withdraw the current petitions to file a more comprehensive writ petition to address this issue. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue or state regarding the issues raised by the petitioners.