9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 232 - HC - GSTSeeking defreezing of Bank Account of petitioner - more than one year has already elapsed since the date of the letter (order of attachment) and therefore, in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, the said order has ceased to operate - HELD THAT - The present petition is disposed of by declaring that the order pursuant to which the communication dated 10.03.2021 was issued, is no longer operative by virtue of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. The concerned bank will not interdict the operation of the bank account of the petitioner on the basis of the communication dated 10.03.2021 - It is clarified that this order will not affect any other order(s) that may have been passed, which have not been placed on record. However, if there are any such orders, the same would be immediately communicated to the petitioner. Petition disposed off.
Issues involved:
The issue involved in the judgment is the freezing of a bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Judgment Details: Issue 1: Freezing of Bank Account The petitioner filed a petition seeking a writ/order to defreeze their bank account, which was frozen by the respondents under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The communication for freezing the account was dated 10.03.2021. However, more than a year had passed since the communication was issued, rendering it inoperative as per Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. The court declared that the order behind the communication is no longer valid, and the concerned bank was directed not to block the petitioner's account based on the outdated communication. Issue 2: Operative Orders The judgment clarified that any other orders affecting the petitioner's account, if existent but not on record, should be immediately communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was granted the liberty to seek appropriate remedies concerning such undisclosed orders. The court preserved all rights and contentions of the petitioner in this regard. The judgment concluded with an order for dasti under the signature of the Court Master, ensuring the implementation of the directives provided in the judgment.
|
