2022 (1) TMI 355 - HC - GST

Bank account unfrozen under CGST Act; re-frozen, petitioner withdraws plea alleging mala fide intentions.

M/s. Vardhman Exim Versus Ms. Shubhagata Kumar, Commissioner of CGST (Delhi West) & Ors.

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 ... Permission for withdrawal of application - Provisional attachment of Bank Accounts - section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to obtain instructions. Having done so, she states that she would like to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies as may be available in law, before the appropriate forum. The petition, along with pending application, is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted. 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 Consequently, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue other avenues for relief.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.