2025 (6) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he consequential proceedings arising out of CC No. 4878/2024 titled "R.D. Sales v. M/s. Best Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." 2. Briefly stated, the facts as per the petition are that the petitioners and the respondent have had longstanding business dealings, and in relation to their most recent transaction in November-December 2023, the petitioners issued two cheques dated 10.11.2023 and 11.12.2023 for Rs. 2,40,000/- each towards the payment of TMT bars, with the mutual understanding that the cheques would not be presented without prior intimation and consent. On 22.01.2024, the petitioners' bank account was provisionally attached by the CGST Department under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, thereby prohibiting any debit transactions. 3.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct is not attracted and the summoning order dated 18.09.2024 is legally unsustainable. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Deepinder Singh Bedi v. State and Anr., Crl. M.C. 5965/2019, decided on 30.09.2024, where it was held that an account frozen by statutory authorities cannot be considered as "maintained" for the purpose of Section 138. 5. It was further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to consider the material placed on record, including the petitioners' reply to the legal notice and the GST communications. In Deepinder Singh Bedi (supra), relying on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 745, the Court held that dishonour of a cheque due to freezing of an account by a st....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es placed on record a certificate from the bank confirming the attachment. Despite such knowledge, the petitioners issued the cheques which were presented on 08.02.2024 and dishonoured thereafter. It was argued that this conduct amounts to negligence and misuse of the cheque mechanism. Such conduct cannot be used as a defence to avoid liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. 8. Counsel for the respondent further relied on Deepinder Singh Bedi v. State (supra) to argue that mere attachment of a bank account cannot by itself absolve the drawer from liability, particularly when the drawer had prior knowledge of the account being inoperable. It was submitted that knowingly issuing cheques from an already attached account reflects culpable ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....05. 11. Perusal of the record indicates that on 18.01.2024, the Commissioner of the CGST Delhi South Commissionerate issued a communication to the State Bank of India, provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, and prohibiting any debits without prior departmental approval (Annexure P3). This order effectively froze the account and restricted all transactions. The same was confirmed by the bank's letter dated 03.03.2025, stating that a "STOP" had been marked on Account No. 41070762619 on 02.02.2024 pursuant to the CGST attachment order dated 22.01.2024, and that no transactions could be permitted until further instructions were received from the department. 12. Perusal of the reply se....