TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on, the timeframe provided therein, which is, one year, would have perhaps expired in the first week of June 2022. As indicated above, this part need not detain us, as the impugned communication and action is otherwise unsustainable in law. The impugned communication is, thus, quashed - the writ petition is disposed off. - W.P.(C) 13911/2021 - - - Dated:- 15-7-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER AND HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU Petitioner Through: Dr. Avinash Poddar, Adv. Respondents Through: Mr Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Ms Shruti Shiv Kumar, Adv. [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): 1. The principal grievance of the petitioner emerges from the communication dated 25.02.2020 addressed by the respondents/revenue to the IndusInd Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, New Delhi. 2. Since the communication is brief, for the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter: To, The Bank Manager, Induslnd Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, Ground Floor, UGF, Plot No 29 North West Avenue, Club Rd, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi 110026 Sir /Madam, Subject: Confirmation for GST re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Prakash s contention that by virtue of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the timeframe prescribed under Section 83 of the 2017 Act stands extended. 6.2. In other words, according to Mr Prakash, the attachment order would continue till the date provided in the order. 6.3. Based on the order dated 10.01.2022, passed in WP(C.) 3/2020 , it is contended that the period spanning between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded and that the department would have the benefit of period prescribed in Section 83 of the 2017 Act i.e., period for which the provisional attachment order is to subsist, which would commence from 01.03.2022. 6.4. It is further contended that, firstly, since the period of limitation prescribed under Section 83 of the 2017 Act is more than 90 days, the limitation would expire on 01.08.2022. 7. Mr Prakash informs us that the aforementioned submission was advanced in W.P.(C.) No.3551/2020, titled M/s Vikas WSP Ltd. Ors. v. Directorate Enforcement Anr which concerned provisional attachment orders passed under Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 [hereafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat investigations have been made against persons who had supplied goods to the petitioner. 10.1. In this behalf, reference is made to paragraph 12 of the counter-affidavit; a hard copy of which has been placed before us by Mr Prakash. The said paragraph adverts to three entities, who supposedly had made inward supplies to the petitioners i.e., M/s Laser India Trading, M/s Great Polimar Export and M/s Sharma Traders. 10.2. It is, therefore, the contention of Mr Prakash that their investigations have shown that foreign currency remittances have not been received against exports made by the petitioner vis- -vis which IGST refund was credited to the account of the petitioner. 10.3. It is, thus, contended that the respondents/revenue have to make the recovery of the IGST refund availed by the petitioner, given the aforesaid circumstances. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned communication would have to be set aside for the following reasons: (i) First and foremost, the impugned communication does not advert to Section 83 of the 2017 Act, as would be evident from the extract set forth hereinabove. (ii) Mr Poddar is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. The issue in the present proceedings, according to us, centers around the tenability of the blocking order which was triggered by the respondents/revenue via the impugned communication. 13.1. In our opinion, the blocking order does not comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites which are embedded in Section 83 of the 2017 Act. 14. Before we conclude, we would also like to advert to the submission made by Mr Prakash, that since, an appeal is pending vis- -vis a para materia provision found in Section 5(1) of the 2002 Act, in which status quo has been ordered, the blocking order should continue to operate. 14.1. His submission does not impress us for the reason that a perusal of the interim order passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.362/2020 dated 02.12.2020, shows that the operation of the judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge in the Vikas case (supra) has not been stayed, as the interim order directs status quo with regard to the ownership, possession and encumbrances on the properties in issue in that matter. That apart, it is an interim order which pertains to a different statute. The final judgement of the Learned Single Judge is against the proposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
