Petitioners directed to seek relief from Special Judge; Court refrains from expressing opinion on merits.

The Court directed the petitioners to seek relief through the Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, refraining from expressing an opinion on the case's merits. The writ petitions were disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate legal remedies.

---

---

Issues:
Challenges to provisional attachment of bank accounts and opening of bank lockers under CGST Act, 2017 without notice or explanation; Allegations of involvement in fraudulent activities leading to attachment; Violation of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenges to Provisional Attachment and Opening of Bank Lockers:
The writ petitions challenged the provisional attachment of bank accounts and the opening of bank lockers under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 without providing notice or an opportunity for the petitioners to explain. The petitioners argued that their rights were violated due to the lack of procedural fairness. They contended that they were not involved in the fraudulent activities linked to Vennapusa Venkata Subba Reddy and should not be treated as shell companies or accomplices.

2. Allegations of Involvement in Fraudulent Activities:
The respondent department alleged that Vennapusa Venkata Subba Reddy, along with accomplices including the 1st petitioner, engaged in passing fake Input Tax Credit invoices without actual supply of goods, violating the CGST Act, 2017. Investigations revealed the creation of fictitious/shell firms for fraudulent activities, leading to the provisional attachment of bank accounts and lockers. The respondents argued that the investigation was ongoing, and opening the lockers was crucial to gather evidence related to the case.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners contended that principles of natural justice were breached as they were not given an opportunity to present their case before the attachment of accounts and freezing of the locker. They submitted representations seeking redress, which were allegedly not considered by the authorities. The respondents, on the other hand, emphasized the seriousness of the fraudulent activities and the necessity of the investigation in protecting government revenue.

4. Judgment and Directions:
After considering the arguments presented, the Court directed the petitioners to approach the Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for appropriate relief. The Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case but advised the petitioners to seek redress through the appropriate legal channels. The writ petitions were disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioners to seek relief through the designated legal forum.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the legal complexities and procedural aspects involved in the judgment, addressing the challenges raised by the petitioners and the responses from the respondent department, ultimately leading to the Court's decision and directions for further legal recourse.

---