The Additional Director General, ... vs Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 16304 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
                              &
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
 WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1943

                     WA NO. 735 OF 2021
   AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 5063/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF
                      KERALA, ERNAKULAM

APPELLANT/1st RESPONDENT:

          THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL,
          DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX
          INTELLIGENCE, KOCHI ZONAL UNIT,
          1ST FLOOR, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN,
          KATHRIKKADAVU, KOCHI - 682 017
          BY ADV SREELAL N. WARRIER, SC, CENTRAL BOARD OF
          EXCISE & CUSTOMS

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT:


    1     KERALA COMMUNICATORS CABLE LTD
          142-H A, FIRST FLOOR, COA BHAVAN,
          THOUNDAYIL ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR,
          ERNAKULAM - 682 036
          (REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.SURESH KUMAR
          P.P.)

    2
          UNION OF INDIA
          REP. BY SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, DELHI]
          DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
          GOVT. OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK,
          NEW DELHI - 110001
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.CYRIAC TOM
          SRI.M.P.SHAMEEM AHAMED
          SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR - ASG
 W.A. No.735/21           -:2:-



     THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.A. No.735/21                     -:3:-



                              JUDGMENT

Dated this the 4th day of August, 2021

Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.

This intra court appeal is preferred by the 1 st respondent in the

writ petition, against the interim order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge staying the directions contained in Clause 2(a)

of Ext.P9. Ext.P9 directed the writ petitioner to furnish security in the

form of a bank guarantee and also to furnish an undertaking in the

form of an affidavit stating that the petitioner shall not alienate any of

its fixed assets, plant, property and equipment shown in the balance

sheet dated 31.03.2020 till the disposal of the writ petition.

2. Appellant contended that the impugned order was granted

by the learned Single Judge without considering the object of Section

83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act' for

brevity) and also without appreciating the legality of the orders

impugned in the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioner had challenged the order of provisional

attachment of bank accounts issued in exercise of the powers under

section 83 of the CGST Act. Subsequent to the orders of provisional

attachment, appellant had directed restoration of the bank accounts

to the writ petitioner as per Ext.P9 on condition of furnishing a bank

guarantee equivalent to the credit balance available in that bank. By

the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge stayed

the direction to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee and

instead directed the writ petitioner to furnish an undertaking before

this Court in the form of an affidavit stating that the writ petitioner

shall not alienate any of its fixed assets, plant, property and

equipment shown in the balance sheet dated 31.03.2020 till the

disposal of the writ petition.

4. We have heard Adv. Sreelal Warriar, learned Senior

Standing Counsel for the appellant as well as Adv. M.P. Shameem

Ahamed for the 1st respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the 1 st respondent brought to our

notice the provisions of section 83(2) of the CGST Act and submitted

that the provisional attachment orders, which were produced in the

writ petition as Ext.P6 series, had expired by operation of the statute

itself and therefore there is no cause for any grievance by the

appellant.

6. We notice that the impugned order was passed by the

learned Single Judge on 24.3.2021. The provisional orders of

attachment were issued on 15.7.2020. Having regard to the

provisions of S.83(2), as brought to our notice by the learned counsel

for the 1st respondent and the date of Ext.P6 order, apart from the

decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in the order under

challenge, we are not persuaded to interfere in this intra court

appeal.

7. However, in view of the difficulties expressed by the

appellant, we grant liberty to the respondents in the writ petition to

move appropriate applications before the learned Single Judge, in

accordance with law, for any relief legally available to them in respect

of the interim order already issued and which may be deemed to be

necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.

With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI JUDGE

Sd/-

                                      BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
                                             JUDGE
vps

                        /True Copy/                   PS to Judge