Allowed

Dinesh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC11 Aug 2021WPA/10015/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an order of account attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, dated 25th October 2019, had lost its force as the statutory period of one year had expired. Consequently, the petitioner reliance on that order to restrict bank operations was not legally justified.

What did the court decide?

The attachment order dated 25th October, 2019 held to have lost its force; bank prohibited from acting further on that basis.

Dinesh Kumar Goyal Vs Union of India and Ors. — Income Tax | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

11.08.2021 p.b. Sl. No.7.

¶2

W.P.A. 10015 of 2021

¶3

Sri Dinesh Kumar Goyal Vs.

¶4

Union of India & Ors.

¶5

(Via Video Conference)

¶6

Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, Mr. Prabir Bera, Mr. Rajnish Kalawatia. ……for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Somnath Ganguly, Mr. Sukalpa Seal, Ms. Priyanvada Singh, Mr. Subhas Chandra Sarkar. …….for the respondents.

¶8

In this matter, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent bank not allowing the petitioner to operate the account in question of the petitioner on the basis of an order of attachment dated 25^th October, 2019 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Director, DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 has lost its force since the maximum period is one year of an order of attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017.

¶9

Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the respondents CGST authority submits that his client has

¶10

¶11

not further extended the tenure of the aforesaid attachment order dated 25^th October, 2019.

¶12

Considering the submission of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of by holding that the aforesaid attachment order dated 25^th October, 2019 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition has lost its force and action of the respondent bank in not allowing the petitioner to operate his bank account in question on the basis of the aforesaid attachment order is not legally justified and the bank shall not act any further on the basis of the aforesaid impugned attachment order dated 25^th October, 2019.

¶13

With these observations, the writ petition being WPA No.10012 of 2021 is disposed of.

¶14

Since this writ petition has been disposed of at the motion stage without calling for affidavits, the allegations made in the writ petition shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondents.

¶15

(Md. Nizamuddin, J.)

Dinesh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar Goyal v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Damodar Valley Hard Coke Products Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manoj Patil Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Doshi (Huf) & Anr. Vs the Jouint Commissioner Sales Tax Behala Circle & Ors.

Gokul Refoils and Solvent Ltd. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Goyal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sumita Goyal Vs Union of India and Ors.