2021 (8) TMI 596 - HC - GST

Freezing of petitioner bank account - Jurisdiction to pass order u/s 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - contention of the petitioner is that Deputy Director not being of the rank of Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to pass such an order or issue such communication - HELD THAT - The petition need not be entertained and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order freezing account under Section 83 of CGST Act by Deputy Director not of Commissioner rank; Jurisdiction of Deputy Director to pass such order; Previous challenge of order by petitioner in Supreme Court; Dismissal of previous challenge by Supreme Court; Subsequent order freezing same account by Additional Director; Petitioner's right to challenge subsequent orders.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order freezing their account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, passed by the Deputy Director. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Deputy Director, not being of the rank of Commissioner, lacked jurisdiction to issue such an order. However, the opposite party's counsel informed the Court that the same order was previously challenged by the petitioner before the Supreme Court in a writ petition, which was dismissed with costs imposed on the petitioners. Therefore, the Court noted that the petitioner could not seek the same relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Considering the facts and submissions, including the previous writ petition before the Supreme Court seeking similar relief and a subsequent order by the Additional Director freezing the same account, the Court found no reason to entertain the current writ petition challenging the Deputy Director's order. The Court observed that the impugned communication had outlived its utility, leading to the dismissal of the current petition. However, the Court clarified that the dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's rights to challenge any subsequent orders by the Additional Director freezing their account, unless there were other legal impediments, especially in light of the Supreme Court's rejection of the petitioner's previous writ petition.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the current writ petition, taking into account the petitioner's previous challenge in the Supreme Court and the subsequent order by the Additional Director. The Court left open the possibility for the petitioner to challenge any future orders regarding the freezing of their account, subject to legal considerations and the outcome of previous legal actions.