Disposed¶53

Cemetrix (It) Services Private Limited v. The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Telangana HC2 Apr 2025WP/9668/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST attachment; Form GST DRC-22; Section 83 CGST Act 2017; sub-section (2) one-year expiry of attachment; bank account attachment; Kotak Mahindra Bank; Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Telangana; writ petition Article 226; mandamus; Articles 14, 19, 21, 265; natural justice; Section 151 CPC interim application; common order; W.P.Nos.9668 & 9671 of 2025; Division Bench precedent W.P.No.14809 of 2024; attachment orders set aside after one year; disposed without opinion on merits; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Both impugned attachment orders dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act are set aside; writ petitions disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits; no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶53

Cemetrix (It) Services Private Limited Vs The… — GST and Indirect Tax | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the attachment orders in Form GST DRC 22 dated 11.03.2024 issued under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, attaching the petitioners' bank accounts, are sustainable, given that under sub-section (2) of Section 83 such attachment orders cease to have effect on expiry of one year.

¶49

Court's answer

In view of the language of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act, as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.14809 of 2024, orders of attachment cease to have effect on expiry of one year; since the one-year period from 11.03.2024 had expired, both impugned orders dated 11.03.2024 are set aside.

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitions are disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the cases, with no order as to costs.

¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Telangana High Court (Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Renuka Yara), by common order dated 02-04-2025 in W.P.Nos.9668 & 9671 of 2025, dealt with two writ petitions by Cemetrix (IT) Services Pvt. Ltd. and Naskon Soft Pvt. Ltd. challenging Form GST DRC-22 attachment orders dated 11.03.2024 issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 to Kotak Mahindra Bank, attaching their bank accounts. Applying sub-section (2) of Section 83 CGST Act as interpreted by a Division Bench of the same Court in W.P.No.14809 of 2024 - under which attachment orders cease to have effect on expiry of one year - and noting that the one-year period had expired, the Court set aside both impugned orders. The writ petitions were disposed of without expressing any opinion on merits, with no costs, and pending interlocutory applications were closed.

¶1

[³⁴⁴⁶ ]

¶2

tN THE H]GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF^APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE^{SUJOY PAUL} AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA^YARA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NOs:9668 & 9671 OF 2025

¶7

W.P.No.9668 OF 2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

Cemetrix^(lT) Services Private Limited, Having^{its officeat 6th Floor, 68,-Melange} Towers, Rathadeep Supermarket Lane,^{Pat-rikaNagar, HitechCity".It/adhapur,} Hyderabad, Telagn'ana Represented by^{its directorMrs.Shilpa Banda,W/o.Satish} Banda, Aged aboul44 Years,^Rl/o. Hyderabad.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Commissioner of Commercial^{Taxes, Commercial Taxes Department' CT} Complex, Nampally, HYderabad.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner of^{State Taxes, Madhapur (4) Circle, Madhapur} Division, 7th Floor, Gaganvihar, Nampally,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The Assistant Commissioner of^{State Taxes, Madhapur (3) Circle, Madhapur} Division, 4th Floor, Gaganvihar, Nampally,^Hyderabad.

¶15

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,^{8-2-12-17611i8,GroundFloor,AshokaHi Tech} Chambers, Road No. 2Banlara^{Hills, Hyderabad - 500034.}

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article^{226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court maybe} pleased to pass a writ order or direction,^{more particularlyin the nature of a writ} of mandamus declaring^{the Form GST DRC 22 bearing. reference No. ccT's} ENFT-2tPeshil2O24 dated^{1110312024issued by Respondent No 1to} Respondent Nos 4 attaching^{the bank accounts as being void, illegal, arbitrary,} violative of Articles 14,^{19,21and 265 of the Constitutionof India, violative of} principles of natural^justice, and^{without authorityof law and consequently set}

¶18

aside the same rnd ,Jirect Respondent No. 4 to release th: bank accounts of the Petitioner.

¶19

lA NO: 2 OF 202tj

¶20

Petition urrder section i51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filer in support of the petition, the High cotrrt may be pleased to direct the Respcndents No. Ito 3 not to recover any further anrounts frcim the Petitioner.

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 202!i

¶22

Petition under rsection 15'l cpc praying that in the c rcumslances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the atta chment-notice in Form GST DRC 22 all bearingl reference No. CCTs EN FT-2lPeshil2tO24 issued to Respondent Nos- 4.

¶23

Counsel for the F,etitioner : SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK

¶24

counsel for the Respondents No.1to3:sRt swARoop ooRlLLr,spl.c.p for state Tax

¶25

Counsel forthe Respondents No.4 :

¶26

W.P.No.9671 OF 12025

¶27

Between:

¶28

Naskon soft Private t-imited, Having its. office at 16-11-19, saleem Nagar colony, Malakpet, Hvderarrad Repreijrnted.6y its director n,lr". sr,irp,idJiioj,ir%.!"ji..t Banda Aged aboul 44 'edrs, Rl/o. Hyd-erabad

¶29

,..PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

The commir;sioner of commerciar raxes, commerciar raxes Department cr Complex, N;rmpally, Hyderabad

¶32

2 The Assistart cc Mmissioner of state Taxes, Madhapur ( 4) circre, Madhapur Division, 7'h Floor, Gaganvihar, Nanipally, HVOeranf,O

¶33

3 The Assistarrt commissioner of state Taxes, Madhapur ri circre, Madhapur Division 4th =loor, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶34

4 kotak Mahairlra Bank Limited, B-.2-12fi6r1r8, Ground Frocr, Ashoka Hi reeh ChamberS, ftoud-No 2Baalata Uills, HyderdbaO _'SObo:x

¶35

..RESPONDENTS

¶36

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass a writ order or direction, more particularly in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the Form. GST DRC 22 bearing reference No. CCT's ENFT-2/Peshi/2024 dated 11-03-2024 issued by Respondent No. 1 to Respondent Nos 4 attaching the bank accounts as being void, illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19,21 and 265 of the Constitution of lndia, violative of principles of natural justice, and without authority of law and consequently set aside the same and direct Respondent No. 4 to release the bank accounts of the Petitioner.

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶38

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^{pleased to} suspend the attachment notice in Fonn GST DRC 22 all bearing^{reference No.} CCT's ENFT-2lPeshil2oz4 issued to Respondent Nos^4.

¶39

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶40

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court^{may be pleased to} direct the Respondents No. 1 to 3 not to recover^{any further amounts from the} Petitioner.

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI M.NAGA DEEPAK

¶42

Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3:SRI^SWAROOP OORILLASPL.G.P^{for State Tax} -- Counsel for the Respondents^No'4 i

¶43

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶44

THE HON"BLE^{THE ACTINGCHIEF WSTICESU.'OYPAUL} AND TEIE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE^{RENUKA I'ARA}

¶45

WRIT PETITION Nos.9668 &9671^{of Ito25}

¶46

COMMON O}TDER^(PertLLe Hon'ble^{the ActingChief Justio: SujoyPaul):}

¶47

Sri I\I. Naga Deepak, learned^{counselfor the petitioners} and Sri Swa oop Oorilla,^{learned Special GovernrrentF'leaderfor} State Tax, lo: rer;pondent Nos.l^{to 3.}

¶48

Regard being had to the similitude^{ol the questions} involved, on the^joint request of^{learned counsel for tlre parties,} the matters vert: analogously^{heard and decided ry this common} order.

¶49

The sinllular attack in these^{writ petitions is to the} orders both dated 11.03.2024^issued .under^{Section83 of the} Central Goorls and Services^{Tax Act, 2077 (for sh'lrt,'the Act').}

¶50

4 . During the course of hearing, learned^{counsel for the} parties fairll submitted that the^{point involved i:r the-se casesis} covered by a Division^{Benchjudgment of thisCourtin} W.P.No.148( t9 ol 2024^{(Annexure-P7).}

¶51

¶52

Apparently, the impugned orders^{were passedon} 11.03.2024 ald in view of^{Sub-section (2)} of^{Section 83 of the} Act, the orders of attachment^cease to^{have effect on expiry of a} period of one year. Since one^{year period} is over,^{in view of} lalguage employed in Sub-section^{(2) of Section 83 of the Act, as} interpreted by a Division^{Bench of this Court in W.P.No- 14809of} 2024, bottr the impugned^{orders datedI I .O3.2O24are set aside'}