Fine Exime Private Limited VS The Union India

Interim Application No. 1322 OF 2021, submitted on June 6, 2020, is part of Writ Petition No. 2127 of 2021. The application presents several prayers seeking modifications and clarifications to the court’s previous rulings. Firstly, it requests the court to amend its order of March 2, 2021, specifically targeting paragraph 6, which stipulates that 90% of the remaining amount is subject to a debit freeze pending the outcome of an appeal or any subsequent orders from the appellate authority. The applicant seeks the deletion of this provision.

Secondly, the application seeks the annulment of an attachment order dated December 1, 2020, issued by Respondent No. 2. It requests the court to unfreeze the remaining 90% of the balance amount, which was frozen according to the court’s order dated March 2, 2021.

Lastly, the application requests a correction in the language used in the court’s order dated March 2, 2021. It seeks to replace the term “Respondent No. 2” with “Respondent No. 3” in paragraph 1 of the said order.

In summary, the interim application seeks modifications to the court’s previous directives, the nullification of an attachment order, and a linguistic correction in a specific court document.

The summary begins with an interim application, No. 1322 OF 2021, filed on June 6, 2020, within Writ Petition No. 2127 of 2021. The application seeks modifications to a previous court order dated March 2, 2021, specifically requesting the removal of a directive concerning the freezing of 90% of a certain amount pending an appeal. Additionally, it seeks to annul an attachment order issued on December 1, 2020, by a specific respondent and to correct an error in the naming of another respondent. Furthermore, it urges the court to instruct another respondent to expedite the decision on an appeal filed by the petitioner within four weeks.

During the hearing of this interim application, both parties’ counsels, Mr. Shah for the petitioner and Mr. Jetly for the respondents, presented arguments not only on the interim application but also on the merits of the writ petition itself. The court decides to address both the writ petition and the interim application in this single judgment and order.

The petitioner initially approached the court seeking to challenge an order issued on December 1, 2020, by the Principal Commissioner of Central Tax and CX, Mumbai East (referred to as respondent no. 2). This order directed the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account held with the Development Bank of Singapore Ltd. (referred to as respondent no. 3). The attachment was made under the authority of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (referred to as the CGST Act). The effect of this attachment was to prevent any debits from the mentioned account or any other account operated by the petitioner without prior permission.

Interim Application No. 1322 OF 2021, submitted on June 6, 2020, pertains to Writ Petition No. 2127 of 2021. The application seeks modifications to a court order dated March 2, 2021, specifically regarding the freezing of 90% of funds pending appeal, issued by the appellate authority. Additionally, it requests the quashing of an attachment order dated December 1, 2020, issued by Respondent No. 2, and the unfreezing of the remaining 90% of funds held in debit freeze. Further, it seeks a correction of respondent numbering in the court order and expeditious resolution of the petitioner’s appeal by Respondent No. 4.

During the hearing of the interim application, arguments were presented by Mr. Shah representing the petitioner and Mr. Jetly representing the respondents. The court decides to address both the writ petition and the interim application in one comprehensive judgment.

The petitioner brought the writ petition to challenge an order from December 1, 2020, issued by the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax and CX, Mumbai East (referred to as respondent no.2). This order directed the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account held with the Development Bank of Singapore Ltd. (respondent no.3), under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The attachment prohibited any debit from the account without prior permission.

The order from December 1, 2020, accused the petitioner of attempting to claim a fraudulent refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act. It also noted that the Dongri Police Station, Mumbai, informed respondent no.2 that the bank account, holding Rs. 5,20,13,134/-, had been temporarily frozen upon their request.

The petitioner contested the December 1, 2020, order, arguing that the conditions necessary for provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act were not met. Since no proceedings against the petitioner were underway under specified sections of the CGST Act, they claimed that respondent no.2 acted beyond jurisdiction.

The writ petition was previously examined by a co-ordinate Bench on March 2, 2021. It noted the issuance of a show-cause notice to the petitioner on January 13, 2021, preceding the attachment order.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:                         

Read Another Case Law:                                      

GST Case law: