2021 (8) TMI 88 - HC - GST

High Court refuses to entertain writ petition challenging account freeze under CGST Act, allows challenge to subsequent orders

M/s A.R. International Enterprises Thru Auth. Sign. Surjeet Versus U.O.I. Thru Secy. Finance Ministry, Revenue Deptt. N. Delhi & Ors

The Allahabad High Court declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the order freezing the petitioner's account under Section 83 of the CGST Act ... Jurisdiction - power to issue order - Attachment of petitioner's Bank Account - contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Deputy Director not being of the rank of Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to pass such an order or issue such communication - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Having considered the facts of the case and submissions made, and also the fact that subsequent to issuance of the communication dated 03.02.2021, impugned herein, another order dated 25.02.2021 has been passed by the Additional Director, freezing the same account, as such, communication impugned herein, even otherwise has outlived its utility, we do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. Petition dismissed. Issues: Jurisdiction of Deputy Director under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017; Challenge to order freezing account; Effect of Supreme Court's dismissal of previous writ petition; Validity of subsequent order by Additional Director.In this judgment by the Allahabad High Court, the petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Director, Agra Regional Unit, freezing their account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the Deputy Director lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order due to not holding the rank of Commissioner. However, it was revealed that the same order had been challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court in a previous writ petition, which was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners. The High Court noted that since the Supreme Court had already dealt with the matter and subsequent to the impugned communication, another order freezing the same account had been passed by the Additional Director, the original communication had lost its relevance and utility. Therefore, the High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, citing the petitioner's previous unsuccessful attempt before the Supreme Court and the subsequent order by the Additional Director. The dismissal was made without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to challenge the subsequent orders by the Additional Director, subject to any legal impediments, especially in light of the Supreme Court's rejection of the previous writ petition.