Court directs Petitioners to pursue statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules instead of seeking relief through writ court.

The Court directed the Petitioners to pursue the statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 instead of seeking relief through writ court. The Petitioners were instructed to file objections before the Deputy Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, CGST East, with necessary documents. The Court emphasized that it had not assessed the case's merits and granted both parties the liberty to pursue their contentions and remedies as per the law. The authority was ordered to handle objections impartially and dispose of them within two weeks, allowing the Petitioners to seek further legal remedies if needed.

---

---

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of Form GST DRC-22 and de-freezing of bank accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Petitioner's Request for Quashing of Form GST DRC-22 and De-freezing Bank Accounts:
The Petitioner in two separate petitions sought quashing of Form GST DRC-22 and directions for de-freezing bank accounts maintained at United Bank of India. The accounts were frozen under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 due to a scam involving fraudulent availment of ITC by multiple companies.

2. Response by Respondent No. 2 and Suggested Remedy:
Respondent No. 2, through learned Senior Standing Counsel, highlighted the scam uncovered during a search action under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017. It was mentioned that an alternate statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 was available for the Petitioners instead of seeking relief from the writ court.

3. Agreement to Statutory Remedy and Court's Decision:
Counsel for the Petitioners agreed to avail the remedy under Rule 159(5) and requested a time-bound direction for the authorities to decide objections. The Court referred to a similar case and directed the Petitioners to file objections under Rule 159(5) before the Deputy Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, CGST East. The Petitioners were granted liberty to file objections and were instructed to appear before the authority with necessary documents.

4. Disposition of Petitions and Clarification:
The Court disposed of the petitions without prejudice to the rights of the Petitioners, emphasizing that they had not examined the merits of the case. Both parties were allowed to pursue their contentions and remedies as per the law. The concerned authority was directed to handle the objections in accordance with the law, without being influenced by any prior observations.

5. Final Directions and Disposal of Petitions:
The Court provided specific directions for the Petitioners to follow the statutory remedy, appear before the authority with objections, and continue to provide information as required. The authority was mandated to dispose of the objections within two weeks and notify the Petitioners. In case of further grievances, the Petitioners were granted the liberty to pursue legal remedies.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues involved, responses from both parties, the Court's decision, final directions, and the overall disposition of the petitions while preserving the legal language and significant details from the original text.

---