2025 (1) TMI 127 - HC - GST

Bank account freezing quashed due to procedural irregularities and arbitrary administrative actions causing genuine hardship

M/s Mecel Construction Versus Assistant Commissioner, Haldia-I Division, Haldia CGST & Ors.

The Calcutta HC allowed a writ petition challenging authorities' actions regarding bank account freezing and adjudication proceedings. The petitioner ... Challenge to actions and orders passed by the respondent authorities concerning the freezing of their bank account and subsequent adjudication proceedings - undue hardship and a violation of procedural fairness - HELD THAT:- Upon a thorough examination of the documents presented to the Court and taking into account the arguments put forth by the parties, this Court allows the writ petition as statutory provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally in cases where genuine hardships are demonstrated, particularly in light of judicial precedents supporting such relief. In S.K. CHAKRABORTY & SONS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2023 (12) TMI 290 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the Hon’ble Division Bench held that 'since provisions of Section 5 of the Act of 1963 have not been expressly or impliedly excluded by Section 107 of the Act of 2017 by virtue of Section 29 (2) of the Act of 1963, Section 5 of the Act of 1963 stands attracted. The prescribed period of 30 days from the date of communication of the adjudication order and the discretionary period of 30 days thereafter, aggregating to 60 days is not final and that, in given facts and circumstances of a case, the period for filling the appeal can be extended by the Appellate Authority'. In light of the procedural irregularities and the arbitrary nature of the actions, this court finds the petitioner’s case to be meritorious - Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the appellate order is quashed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the freezing of the petitioner's bank accounts by the respondent authorities was justified under the circumstances, particularly in light of the procedural fairness and statutory compliance by the petitioner.Whether the petitioner's appeal against the adjudication order, accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, should be entertained given the alleged procedural irregularities and hardships faced by the petitioner.Whether the statutory provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally in cases where genuine hardships are demonstrated, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification for Freezing Bank AccountsRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case refers to the provisions under the GST Act, 2017, concerning the freezing of bank accounts as a coercive measure. The court also considers precedents related to procedural fairness and the impact of COVID-19 on compliance capabilities.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner faced difficulties in responding to the Show Cause Notice due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which impacted procedural timelines. The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, especially when statutory pre-deposit requirements are met.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner submitted a representation acknowledging receipt of the adjudication order and filed an appeal with a pre-deposit. Despite these actions, the respondent authorities did not address the petitioner's grievances or withdraw the attachment.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles of procedural fairness and statutory compliance, noting that the petitioner's appeal and pre-deposit demonstrated a commitment to resolving the matter legally.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court balanced the respondent's authority to enforce compliance with the petitioner's right to fair treatment, ultimately favoring the latter due to the procedural irregularities.Conclusions: The court found the freezing of accounts unjustified under the circumstances, given the petitioner's compliance with procedural requirements and the hardships faced.Issue 2: Consideration of Appeal and Condonation of DelayRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017, and its interaction with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, concerning the condonation of delay in filing appeals.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court relied on the precedent set in S. K. Chakraborty & Sons Vs. Union of India, which clarified that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable unless expressly excluded by the GST Act.Key Evidence and Findings: The court recognized the procedural irregularities and hardships faced by the petitioner during the pandemic, which justified a liberal interpretation of the limitation provisions.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the precedent to extend the period for filing the appeal, recognizing the genuine hardships demonstrated by the petitioner.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court considered the respondent's strict adherence to procedural timelines against the petitioner's circumstances, ultimately favoring a flexible approach.Conclusions: The court allowed the appeal and quashed the adjudication order, directing the Appellate Authority to consider the application for condonation of delay on its merits.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSVerbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: The court cited the precedent: 'Section 107 of the Act of 2017 does not exclude the applicability of the Act of 1963 expressly... Section 5 of the Act of 1963 stands attracted.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory provisions on limitation should be interpreted liberally in cases of genuine hardship, especially when procedural irregularities are evident.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court quashed the adjudication order, restored the petitioner's rights under the GST Act, 2017, and directed the Appellate Authority to consider the condonation of delay application on its merits within two months.The judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the need for a flexible interpretation of statutory limitations in light of extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic. The court's decision reflects a commitment to ensuring justice and fairness in administrative proceedings.