Court orders release of bank account in CGST Act petition, cites expired attachment period and lack of disclosure.

The court allowed the writ petition challenging the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court directed the respondents to de-freeze the account maintained with IndusInd Bank Ltd. The petitioner's argument that the attachment period had expired and the lack of disclosure of pending proceedings under specific sections of the GST Act rendered the impugned order not maintainable was accepted. The court emphasized that the respondents could take further legal action as necessary. The matter was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to provisional attachment of bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017; Direction to de-freeze bank account; Maintainability of impugned order without disclosure of pending proceedings under specific sections of the GST Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 14th July, 2020, provisionally attaching their bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, and sought direction to de-freeze the account. The petitioner argued that as per Section 83(2) of the Act, the provisional attachment ceases to have effect after one year from the date of issuance, which had elapsed in this case. Citing a previous judgment, the petitioner contended that despite the expiry of the attachment period, they were still unable to operate the account. The petitioner also claimed that the impugned order was not maintainable as it did not indicate any pending proceedings under specific sections of the GST Act, contrary to the Supreme Court's ruling in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC 771.

The court issued notice and the respondent no.2 acknowledged it. The respondent's counsel, representing the Deputy Commissioner of CGST, West Delhi, informed the court that the investigation had not progressed due to the petitioner's non-cooperation, as they had not responded to the summons. However, the respondent's counsel admitted that the provisional attachment order would expire after one year, as per Section 83(1) of the Act. The petitioner's counsel refuted the non-cooperation allegation and assured that the petitioner would respond within seven days if served with a copy of the summons.

Accepting the petitioner's assurance, the court directed the respondents to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account maintained with IndusInd Bank Ltd. The court clarified that the respondents were free to take further legal steps as per the law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the matter was disposed of.

---