Allowed

Ali Asgar Junagadhwala v. The Union of India

Telangana HC5 Sept 2023WP/24036/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 dated 05.01.2021 ceases to be in force after one year on 05.01.2022. Consequently, the attached accounts and immovable property must be treated as un-effected.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 4th and 5th respondents to permit the petitioners to deal with the attached immovable and movable properties as the attachment order has ceased to be in force.

Ali Asgar Junagadhwala Vs The Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁸⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY ,THE FIFTH DAY^{OF SEPTEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:^{24036OF 2023}

¶7

Between

¶8

1 Ali Asgar Junagadhwala, S/o.Mr.Hussaini Junagadhwala,^{Aged about 40} years, Occ.Business, R/o Plot No.4, Ralmanzil, SBH Colony,^{Trimalgherry,} Secunderabad.

¶9

Mr.Kutbuddin Junagadhwala,^{S/o. Mr. Hussaini Junagadhwala,Aged about37} - y"urr, Occ.Businesls, R/o. Plot No.4, Rajmanzil, SBH Colony, Trimalgherry, Secunderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

The Union of lndia,^{Rep.by its Under Secretary, Ministry of Finance,North} Block, Central Secretariat,^{New Delhi - 110 001.}

¶13

The Principal commissioner,^{central Taxcentral Exciseand Service Tax,} -' SeiunOera'nad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, L'B'Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, HYderabad^{- 04.}

¶14

The Commissioner,^{Central Tax, CentralExcise} and Service Tax, Secunderabad GST^{Commissionerate, GSTBhavan,} L.B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, HYderabad^{- 04.}

¶15

The Sub-Registrar,^{Bowenpally, Secunderabad.}

¶16

The Manager,^{lClCl Bank, Charminar Branch, Nayapul X Road, Hyderabad}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ or order^{or direction,more particularly one in natureof} writ of Mandamus, to^{declare that the action of the 3rd respondent in causing} provisional attachment of^{the immovableand movable properties ofthe} petitioners under Section^{83 of GGSTAct, 2017 duringthe month of January,}

¶19

2021 ceased to be in force by virtue of Section 83(2) of the Act after the period of one year and consequently direct the 4th and 5th respondents nc,t to restricl the petitioners from dealing with their attached properties.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, the High court may be pleased to direct the 4th respondent to permit the petitioners to deal with the immovable property in Plot No.4, Rajmanzil, SBH Colony, Trimalgherry, Secunderabad_.1 5 un-effected by the provisional attachment order dt.0210'112021 issued by the 3rd respondent under Section 83 of COST Act, 2011 , pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the aff idavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the Sth respondent to permit the 2nd petitioner to operate the bank account bearing No.024205005955 un-effected by the provisional attachment order dt.07.01.2021 issued by the 3rd respondent under section 83 of GGST Act, 2017, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI VEDULA SRIN|VAS SR. SMT, VEDULA CHITRALEKHA

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 : SRI DOMNIC FERNADES,SC

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : NONE APPEARED

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

¶31

WRIT PETITION NO,24O36 of 2o23

¶32

ORD R: (per Hon'ble Si Justice P.Sam Koshg)

¶33

. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mrs. Vedula Chitralekha, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Solicitor General Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar for respondent no. 1, and Sri Domnic Fernades, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶34

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for Writ of Mandamus declaring that the provisional attachment order issued by respondent No.3 on O5.OL.2O2I ceases to be in force by virtue of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The case of the petitioners is that byvirtue of the order dated 05.O1.202 1 issued by the respondent No.3, three bank accounts and are immovable property were put under the provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. As per the provision of Section B3(2) of the Act, the provisional attachment order would have a life of only one year. That unless the same stands extended, the provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order, which in this case is O5.O1.2O21. As such, the efficacy of the order dated O5.OI.2021would loose w.e.f. 05.Ol-2022.

¶35

¶36

The petitionr:rs after expiry of one ycar had app roached the respective bank aulhorities as also thc Sub-Rcgistrar. Flovrever, lu,o oI the Banks i.e., HDFC, Kotak Mahindra Bank have acccded to the request of the pctitioners and permitted them to ol)erate their accounts. Horvevcr, the ICICI Bank, Charminar Elranch (5,t, rcspondent), so also the Sub-Registrar (4rlr respondenrJ have not acceded to the request of the petitioners in spite of petitioncrs having made a u,ritten request on 18.08.2023 to all of them. u'hich led to filing of the present writ petition.

¶37

On the prcvir>us date of hearing,^{wc have} directt:d the lcarned counsel for the Department to ascertain^rvhether the provisional attachment order has been further extended or a new attachment order has been subsequently issued or not. The learnr:d counsel for the Department today on instruction representcd that the provisional attachment order has neither been further extended nor fresh attachment order hils been passed. Given the said submissions by the counsel for the petitioners further taking into considr:ration the specific provision as is reflected from Section 83, more particularly sub-section (2) of Section 83, it would clearly reflect that the order of the provisional attachment, dated O5.O1.202I has lost its efficacy w.e.f. 05.0i.2022 itself .

¶38

In view of the same, this Court has no hesitation in disposing of the present writ petition holding that the order dated O5.01.202 I by

¶39

*e-, ireIG:

¶40

¶41

efflux of time has lost its efhcacy and ceases to be in operation any further. The authorities i.e., respondent Nos.4 and 5 are expected to take appropriate decision in the light of the order passed by this Court.

¶42

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

ASSfPI'Hi?38+RtR //TRUE COPY// {gt SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, l.TheSecretary,Unionoflndia,N/inistryofFinance'NorthBlock'Central Secretariat,^{New Delhi - 1 10 001 '}

¶47

The Principal^{Commissioner, Central TaxCentral Exciseand Service Tax'} -' secunderatad GST Commissionerate, GST Bhavan, L-B.Stadium Road, Basheerbagh,^{HYderabad - 04'}

¶48

S. itre Comirissioner,^{Central Tax, Central Exciseand ServiceTax'} -'SecunOeraOadGSTCommissionerate,GSTBhavan'L'B'stadiumRoad' Basheerbagh,^{HYderabad - 04'}

¶49

The Sub-Registrar,^{Bowenpally, Secunderabad'.}

¶50

S. fh" frlrnug"i,^{tCtCt Bank,'Chirminar Branch, Nayapul X Rogd' Hyderabad} 6. o"; cc d^{sMT. VEDULAcHITRALEKHA, Advocate[oPUC]} ;. O;" CC^{to SRl. GADI PRAVEENKUMAR, Dv SoLICITOR GENERAL OF} lNDlA.[oPUC]

¶51

a. one cb^to sit^{DoMNlc FERNADES,sc'[oPUC]}

¶52

Two CD^CoPies

SBln*

HIGH COURT

DATED:0^510912023

ORDER

1 e SrArE o
(F
(
I )'
lt
a 1,
[B SEP ?M
.,1 )
I oespr''r'l ,,r.(,O

¶58

WP.No.24036^{of 2023}

¶59

DISPOSING^{OF THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT^COSTS.

¶60

'nok
6\q \r- >

Ali Asgar Junagadhwala v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Asgar Junagadhwala v. The Union of India

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

M/s Durga Granites, Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1

Commissioner of Central Tax Vs M/s Rayalaseema Steel Re-rolling Pvt. Ltd.

Principal Commissioner of Customs, Vs Khan Sadaf

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Kudupuganti Rama

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation Vs Chitti Sujana @ Srujana Reddy @ Nirmala

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mutyala Vijaya Lakshmi