2020 (2) TMI 1106

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s preferred the present writ petition to seek the following reliefs:- "a) quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 6.2.2020, 2.12.2019 & 3.12.2019; b) declare Rule 159(5) of the Rules to the extent it specifies the time period of seven days as ultra-vires of the provisions of Section 83(1) of the Act; c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction; d) to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing to release/restore the six bank accounts as stated in prayer (a) for the exclusive operations of petitioner for running their day to day business affairs;" 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents, in pursuance of the search operation which was conducted bet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule (1), file an objection to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment, and the Commissioner may, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the person filing the objection, release the said property by an order in FORM GST DRC-23." 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the before the respondents, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sambha Ji Vs. Gangabai, 2009 (240) ELT 161 (SC) = 2008 (11) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT. In the said case, the Court construed Order 8 Rule 1 CPC to be a directory provision, notwithstanding that it requires the defendant to present the written statement of his defence within 30 days from the date of service of summons upo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her, the nature of the provision contained in Order 8 Rule 1 is procedural. It is not a part of the substantive law. Substituted Order 8 Rule 1 intends to curb the mischief of unscrupulous defendants adopting dilatory tactic, delaying the disposal of cases, causing inconvenience to the plaintiffs and the petitioners approaching the court for quick relief and also the serious inconvenience of the court faced with frequent prayers for adjournments. The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. While justice delayed may amount to justice denied, justice hurried may in some cases amount to justice buried. x x x x 13. it is also to be noted that though the power of the court under the proviso appended to Rule 1 o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to reject the same. 9. Having heard both the learned counsels, it is clear to us that the period of 7 days prescribed in Rule 159(5) is a directory and not a mandatory period. Therefore, on account of delay on the part of the objector, if he prefers his objections beyond the period of 7 days, the objections cannot be rejected on the ground of limitation. No consequence is prescribed either in the Act or in the Rules to say that if the objections are not preferred within 7 days, they shall not be entertained. 10. The decision in Sambhaji (2008 (11) TMI 393 - SUPREME COURT) is clearly attracted to the present case. Moreover, it is the objector who would suffer adverse consequence on account of delay on his part in raising the objection....