Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Digambar Jain Trading Company vs Additional Director General, ... on 19 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3068/2021
Digambar Jain Trading Company, Shop No. 11, New Anaj Mandi,
Tijara, Alwar Through Its Authorized Signatory And Sole
Proprietor-Mr. Bharat Bhushan Jain.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Additional Director General, Directorate General Of Gst
Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur - C-62, Sarojini
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001.
2. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of Gst
Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, Jaipur - C-62, Sarojini
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, through VC HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 19/01/2022 The petitioner has challenged the provisional attachment orders both dated 6/8th October, 2020 under which the bank accounts of the petitioner proprietary concern and its sole proprietor have been provisionally attached in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It is undisputed that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act any such order of provisional attachment would have validity of not more than one year. The contours of the powers of the competent authority for issuing provisional attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Act have been elaborately discussed (Downloaded on 24/01/2022 at 09:52:12 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-3068/2021] by the Apex Court in the case of M/s Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, Civil Appeal No. 1155 of 2021 decided on 20.04.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that after the lapsing of the period of one year from the date of issuance of provisional attachment orders, the Department has not passed any further orders and despite it, the attachment of the bank accounts are not lifted.
Under the circumstances, in view of lapsing of the provisional attachment orders, it is not necessary to examine the legality of the orders. However, it is directed that the respondents shall release the attachment of the bank accounts which were placed under attachment by the impugned orders.
Petition disposed of accordingly.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI / 108
(Downloaded on 24/01/2022 at 09:52:12 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)