Court denies intervention in document request, upholds attachment order under Central GST Act, directs respondent to provide reasoned order.

The court declined to intervene in the petitioner's request for documents listed in Annexure-A, as the matter was already pending before respondent no.3. Regarding the challenge to the attachment of the bank account, the court upheld the attachment order issued under Section 67 of the Central GST Act, noting that the petitioner had already submitted objections. The court found no need to keep the petition pending or request a counter affidavit, directing respondent no.3 to provide a reasoned order on the objection within two weeks after granting a hearing to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues:
1. Prayer for supply of documents mentioned in Annexure-A for statutory compliances.
2. Challenge to the attachment of the bank account of M/s Wave Agro Oils.
3. Direction to return the illegally taken amount of Rs. 14,99,552.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ to compel respondent no.1 to supply documents listed in Annexure-A for statutory compliances. The court noted that the representation regarding this issue was already pending before respondent no.3. Therefore, the court found no need to intervene at this stage.

2. The second prayer aimed to set aside the attachment of the petitioner's bank account. The court observed that the attachment order was issued during a search at the petitioner's premises under Section 67 of the Central GST Act. The court held that there was no lack of jurisdiction in issuing the attachment order. The petitioner claimed denial of an opportunity for a hearing. However, the court noted that the petitioner had already submitted a written objection, and the matter was pending before respondent no.3 for further action.

3. The final prayer requested the return of Rs. 14,99,552 allegedly taken illegally by the respondent Department. The court mentioned that the petitioner's representation for the refund was also pending before respondent no.3. Considering the pending actions and submissions, the court deemed it unnecessary to keep the petition pending or call for a counter affidavit. The court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to respondent no.3 to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's objection within two weeks, after providing a hearing to the petitioner.

---