Allowed

M/S Civice Enteprise (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC5 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/5328/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged freezing of its bank account by GST authorities beyond the one-year limit under Section 83 of the CGST Act. Relying on Kesari Nandan Mobile, the Delhi High Court held repeated freezing impermissible where the statute provides no extension mechanism and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in terms of prayer clause (a); de-freezing of bank account directed to be carried out forthwith.

M/S Civice Enteprise (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 5328/2024

¶4

M/S CIVICE ENTEPRISE (OPC) PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Pranay Jain, Mr. Karan, Mr. Ramchandra Madan, Mr. Vivek Anand Singh, Mr. Tushar Nigam, Mr. Himanshu Yadav, Mr. Sarthak Verma, Mr. Kunal Jha and Ms. Smridhi Dhaiya, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF GOODS AND SERVICE TAX NORTH DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Shubham Mishra, Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi and Mr. Akhay Sagar, Advocates.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

¶9

O R D E R % 05.02.2026

¶10

We have heard respective counsels for the parties at length.

¶11

Alleging illegal action on the part of the respondents in the matter of freezing of bank account vide request dated 13^th March, 2023 addressed to the Axis Bank and by another communication dated 11^th March, 2024, the petitioners have approached before this Court against the respondentsRevenue alleging violation of the statutory rights/protection under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (in short, “Act, 2017”). 3. The contentions are that the request for freezing shall operate only for

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 13:05:07

¶14

a period of one year. It is claimed that there cannot be repeated freezing of the account, in case, if there is a failure on the part of respondent to complete the investigation within the time stipulated.

¶15

It is urged that recourse cannot be directly taken to section 83 of the Act of 2017 for repeated attachment, freezing of the account. 5. Drawing support from the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Kesari Nandan Mobile Vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax: (2025) 145 GSTR 576 decided on 14^th August, 2025, it is urged that the issue is squarely covered.

¶16

As against above, the counsel for the respondent states that having regard to the Scheme of Section 83 of the Act, the Court may pass an appropriate order in the matter.

¶17

It is not in dispute that the period for which the freezing was ordered was already over and it was incumbent on the part of the respondent to conduct themselves in accordance with a statutory mandate provided under the Section 83 of the Act of 2017.

¶18

As regards the impact of Section 83 particularly sub-section 1 and sub-section 2 is already looked into by the Apex Court in the matter of Kesari Nandan Mobile (supra).

¶19

The Apex Court was of the view that the issue is already settled qua the provisions interpretation of sub-section 1 of Section 83 whereas in paragraph 39 of the said judgment which reads thus:

¶20

“39. The appellant's argument that the Parliament, being cognizant of other taxing statutes, deliberately chose not to incorporate an extension provision in the section, also carries considerable merit. The procedure of provisional

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 13:05:07

¶23

attachment is not alien to tax jurisprudence. Such pre-emptive measure can be found in several statutes, including the Customs Act and the Excise Act, and the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well. Ergo, when the statue does provide for an extension, the authority thereunder is free to do so, subject to such restrictions as may be imposed. Conversely, when a statute does not provide for an extension, renewal, re-issuance, revival — whatever be the nomenclature — the executive cannot overreach the statute to do so.”

¶24

It has observed that the statute does not provide for an extension, the authority thereunder to freeze to do so subject to such restrictions as may be imposed.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). The de-freezing be carried out forthwith.

¶26

NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J

¶27

AJAY DIGPAUL, J

¶28

FEBRUARY 5, 2026 Rr/ab/st

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/02/2026 at 13:05:07

M/S Civice Enteprise (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Civice Enteprise (Opc) Pvt. Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax North Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijender Singh. Vs Globe Detective Agency Pvt. Ltd.

Kumari Pratiksha Vs Union of India & Ors.

Narendra Sharma Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Save India Foundation (Regd.) Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Mahender Singh & Anr. Vs the Dy. Secretary Land and Building Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Poonam Gupta Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjay Pahwa Vs Commissioner of Customs & Anr.

Ami Sisodiya Vs Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Akash Bansal (Proprietor M/S Shri Prem Ji Traders) Vs Superintendent Range - 109 Central Goods and Services Tax Department, Delhi West, Division- Rohini

M/S Ir Computer Traders Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi

M/S Compact Enterprises Vs Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax East Delhi