Bank account unfrozen under CGST Act; re-frozen, petitioner withdraws plea alleging mala fide intentions. The Division Bench directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which had been frozen ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Bank account unfrozen under CGST Act; re-frozen, petitioner withdraws plea alleging mala fide intentions.
The Division Bench directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which had been frozen beyond the permissible period. Subsequently, the respondents re-froze and provisionally attached the account, alleging lack of cooperation from the petitioner. The petitioner claimed mala fide intentions by the respondents. After discussions, the petitioner withdrew the petition with liberty to seek alternative remedies. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to explore other avenues for relief.
Issues: 1. De-freezing of petitioner's bank account under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2. Allegation of mala fide action by respondents in re-freezing the account. 3. Cooperation of the petitioner in tax recovery proceedings. 4. Withdrawal of the petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies.
Analysis: 1. The Division Bench had previously directed the de-freezing of the petitioner's bank account, which had been frozen under s.83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The account remained frozen beyond the permissible period, leading the petitioner to approach the court for relief.
2. Subsequent to the purported de-freezing of the account, the respondents allegedly re-froze and provisionally attached it, along with issuing a summon to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that this action rendered the earlier court direction ineffective, alleging mala fide intentions on the part of the respondents.
3. The respondents justified their actions as necessary for tax recovery, citing the petitioner's lack of cooperation in earlier proceedings under s.83(1) of the Act. The petitioner, however, refuted these claims, asserting readiness to cooperate and respond to valid notices from the department.
4. Following discussions in court, the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to explore alternative legal remedies. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue other avenues for relief. The order was directed to be uploaded on the court's website promptly.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
