Bombay High Court
M/S Galaxy International vs Union Of India Throu. The Sec. Ministry ... on 20 August, 2024
Author: K. R. Shriram
Bench: K. R. Shriram
1/5 9-WP-11399-2024.doc
Digitally
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
signed by
PURTI
PURTI PRASAD
PRASAD PARAB
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PARAB Date:
2024.08.22
15:31:14
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 11399 OF 2024
Galaxy International ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
----
Mr. Brijesh Pathak for Petitioner.
Mr. J.B. Mishra a/w Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
----
CORAM : K. R. SHRIRAM &
JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : 20th / 21st AUGUST 2024
P.C. :
1. Mr. Mishra is seeking some time to take instructions and file
reply. Mr. Pathak states that the bank account has been frozen on 11 th July
2024 and despite a representation made on 13 th July 2024 (incorrectly
typed as 13th July 2022) respondent did not take steps. Mr. Pathak states
that it is over a month now his client is suffering from the high handed
behaviour by respondent.
Mr. Mishra states that the letter impugned dated 9 th July 2024
nowhere mentions that the bank account is frozen.
In view thereof, petitioner is at liberty to operate the bank
account and use the money to his credit.
2. Reply to be filed and copy served within two weeks. Rejoinder,
if any, to be filed and copy served within a week thereafter.
Purti Parab
2/5 9-WP-11399-2024.doc
3. Petition to come up for admission on 23rd September 2024.
On 21st August 2024
4. Today, the matter was mentioned though not listed on board by
Mr. Mishra. Since yesterday's order was not signed and uploaded, we
entertained Mr. Mishra's oral application.
5. Mr. Mishra states that by a separate order passed on 8 th May
2024, petitioner's bank account has been frozen and petitioner has not
brought this to the notice of this Court.
6. Mr. Pathak states that petitioner was not aware of any such
order and only this morning, when Mr. Mishra handed over a copy of the so
called attachment order dated 8 th May 2024, that petitioner became aware
of such order. Mr. Pathak also states that petitioner had filed an earlier writ
petition bearing No.5476 of 2024 which came to be disposed of on 8 th July
2024 by the following order :-
"1 Counsel states that more than one year has lapsed after the order
dated 10th May 2023 was passed to attach the bank account with
respondent no.3. As per provisions of Section 83 of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017, the attachment would lapse.
2 Mr. Adik agrees with the position in law as stated by Mr. Lodha and in
fact clarified that it is sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act to be
specific. In view thereof, the order dated 10 th May 2023 having lapsed, Mr.
Lodha states nothing will survive in this petition.
3 Petition accordingly disposed. Respondent no.3 shall act on a copy of
this order and de-freeze the account."
Purti Parab
3/5 9-WP-11399-2024.doc
7. Mr. Pathak states if this order dated 8 th May 2024 had been
passed and communicated to petitioner, respondents should have informed
the Court.
8. Ms. Yadav, who is present in Court and who had appeared on
8th July 2024, states that after the order was passed, she was informed by
the concerned officer that an order dated 8 th May 2024 attaching the bank
account of petitioner has been passed. Ms. Yadav states thereafter, she
immediately drafted a review petition which after approval from the
officers concerned got lodged yesterday, i.e., 20th August 2024.
9. We are rather surprised that respondents, first of all, do not
appear to have informed petitioner about the order dated 8 th 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 8 th 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.
10. Therefore, we direct the Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Purti Parab
4/5 9-WP-11399-2024.doc
Revenue, Government of India 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.
11. This action is necessary to save the revenue from
embarrassment and also from possibly losing a fairly good case that they
might have. Of course, we are not passing any judgment on this aspect.
12. In view of this, we are not signing the order that was dictated
on 20th August 2024.
13. 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. No extension shall be granted and if the affidavit is
not so filed, we will proceed on the basis that respondents have no
objection to the relief sought in this petition being granted. If affidavit is
filed, rejoinder shall be filed and copy served by 6th September 2024.
14. Copy of this order shall be immediately forwarded by the
Registry to Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
New Delhi by speed post.
Purti Parab
5/5 9-WP-11399-2024.doc
15. Stand over to 9th September 2024.
(JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Purti Parab
