2024 (8) TMI 1134 - HC - GST

Freezing of bank account of petiitoner - impugned letter nowhere mentions that the bank account is frozen - HELD THAT - Respondents, first of all, do not appear to have informed petitioner about the order dated 8th May 2024 and if such an order had been passed and communicated to petitioner, they ought to have informed their advocate, petitioner s advocate and the court when the other writ petition was taken up on 8th July 2024. This only reflects sorry state of affairs in the office of respondents. Because of lack of instructions from the officers of the department, Revenue s advocates are put in a very embarrassing position. Advocates for respondent revenue rely on instructions from the officers and therefore, it was the duty of officers to give proper and correct instructions before the matter is listed. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Revenue, Government of India is directed to have an enquiry instituted against the officer concerned and if there has been a lapse on the part of the officers in not giving timely instructions to their advocates then (a) to take disciplinary action against the concerned officer and (b) advice all its officers to give timely instructions so that such lapses do not recur. The Principal Commissioner, Gurugram shall file affidavit in reply bringing all facts on record and also give an explanation on lapses noted above and this affidavit shall be filed and copy served on petitioner by 30th August 2024. Stand over to 9th September 2024.

Summary

Issues:
1. Freezing of bank account without proper communication.
2. Failure to inform the court and petitioner about the attachment order.
3. Lack of timely instructions leading to embarrassment for revenue department.
4. Direction for enquiry and disciplinary action against the concerned officer.
5. Filing of affidavit by Principal Commissioner and subsequent deadlines.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the freezing of a bank account without proper communication to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that despite a representation made, the respondent did not take steps, causing the client to suffer. The respondent argued that the letter in question did not mention the freezing of the bank account. Consequently, the petitioner was allowed to operate the bank account until further notice (para 1).

Another issue raised was the failure to inform the court and petitioner about an attachment order dated 8th May 2024. The petitioner claimed ignorance of this order until it was presented by the respondent's counsel. This lack of communication was deemed a sorry state of affairs, leading to embarrassment for the revenue department (para 6-9).

In response to the above issues, the court directed the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Revenue, Government of India, to conduct an inquiry against the officer responsible for the lapse in communication. The court emphasized the importance of timely instructions to avoid similar lapses in the future and protect the revenue from potential losses (para 10-11).

Furthermore, the court instructed the Principal Commissioner, Gurugram, to file an affidavit in reply, detailing all facts and providing an explanation for the noted lapses. Strict deadlines were set for the filing of the affidavit and subsequent responses, with a warning that failure to comply would be construed as no objection to the relief sought by the petitioner (para 13).

The judgment concluded with the order for immediate forwarding of a copy to the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The case was adjourned to a later date for further proceedings (para 14-15).