Allowed

Mrs. Meena Ojha, v. Senior Intelligence Officer

Madras HC7 Aug 2019WP/23218/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 23218 of 2019, the Madras High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking a direction to the Additional Director General of GST Intelligence to lift the attachment on the petitioner's bank account. The Court directed the Second Respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2019 within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Second Respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2019 within six weeks and communicate the outcome within seven days

Mrs. Meena Ojha, Vs Senior Intelligence Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATE: 07.08.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR

¶5

W.P.Nos.23218 of 2019

¶6

Mrs.Meena Ojha .. Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate General of GST Intelligence Madurai Regional Unit No.4, Sri Lakshmi Complex T.Nagar Main Road Madurai – 625 014 2. The Additional Director General Directorate General of GST Intelligence Coimbatore Coimbatore Zonal Unit No.155/1, Lakshmanan Street Behind Ukkadam Bus Stand Ukkadam, Coimbatore – 641 001 .. Respondents

¶9

Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein, more particularly, the 2^nd respondent to lift the attachment caused by the office of the 2^nd respondent with respect to the firm's current account in No.200000831793 maintained with Equitas Small Finance Bank, West Mambalam, Chennai – 600 033.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Sathish Sundar

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel for Income Tax ORDE R

¶12

Mr.B.Sathish Sundar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax accepts notice on behalf of both the respondents.

¶13

2.Notwithstanding several avements made in the affidavit

¶14

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

filed in support of the writ petition and notwithstanding several grounds raised / contentions urged in the affidavit filed in support of the instant writ petition, learned counsel for writ petitioner, on instructions, submitted that he abridges the prayer or in otherwords restricts / confines the prayer by seeking a direction to the second respondent to dispose of a representation dated 06.05.2019 sent by the writ petitioner (duly received by the second respondent on 08.05.2019). To be noted, a copy of the representation dated 06.05.2019 and postal acknowledgement (tracking report) have been placed before this Court as part of the case file at page Nos.126 and 131 respectively of the typed-set of papers.

¶16

3.In the light of the aforesaid scenario, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, namely learned counsel for writ petitioner and Revenue counsel, main writ petition is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of.

¶17

4.Instant writ petition now turns on a very narrow compass and the scope has become very limited. Therefore, it may not be necessary to advert to facts in detail.

¶18

5.Short facts shorn of micro details, necessary for this order and necessary for considering the prayer are to the effect that there are some proceedings against the writ petitioner under 'Central Goods and Services Act, 2017' (hereinafter 'CGST Act' for brevity) including criminal prosecution and Savings Bank account of the writ petitioner has been provisionally attached.

¶19

6.Vide the aforesaid representation, writ petitioner has written to the second respondent inter alia making a request to raise the aforesaid attachment. It is the specific case of learned counsel for writ petitioner and stated position of writ petitioner that the aforesaid representation has not evoked any response or reply and that there is inaction on the part of the second respondent.

¶20

7. In the light of the narrowed down scope of the instant writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of writ petitioner's representation dated 06.05.2019 (received by the second respondent on 08.05.2019) on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Disposal of writ petitioner's aforesaid representation shall be communicated to the writ petitioner under due acknowledgement within seven working days from the date of the order.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (J)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gpa
To
1. The Additional Director General
Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Coimbatore
Coimbatore Zonal Unit
No.155/1, Lakshmanan Street
Behind Ukkadam Bus Stand
Ukkadam, Coimbatore – 641 001
2.Senior Intelligence Officer
Directorate General of GST Intelligence
Madurai Regional Unit
No.4, Sri Lakshmi Complex
T.Nagar Main Road
Madurai – 625 014
+1cc to Mr.B.Sathish Sundar, Advocate, S.R.No. 67780
+1cc to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate, S.R.No. 67403
W.P.No.23218 of 2019
GN(26/08/2019)

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mrs. Meena Ojha, v. Senior Intelligence Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Meena Ojha, v. Senior Intelligence Officer

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

Ge T and D India Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner

Jsr Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner

M/s.Cbc Fashions (Asia) Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Hilton Polymers Vs The assistant Commissioner (St)

Shriram City Union Vs Central Board of Indirect

Neeraj Kumar Ojha, Vs The Addititional Director General