Pradeep Kumar Siddha Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of Pradeep Kumar Siddha vs. Union of India & Ors., addressing the issue of a bank account lien imposed by tax authorities. The petitioner’s Axis Bank account had been attached, and Rs. 62,32,400 was appropriated towards alleged tax dues without proper adherence to the principles of natural justice. The High Court had previously ordered the respondents to deposit this amount with the court, which was then re-credited to the petitioner’s account. Subsequently, an Order-in-Original was passed, imposing a lien on the same account for a total demanded dues amount of Rs. 1,49,87,924.
The petitioner filed the current writ petition, arguing that the lien prevented them from depositing 10% of the tax demand (Rs. 8,76,564), a mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original. The petitioner also challenged the legality of the lien itself. The respondents argued the petition was frivolous, citing the availability of an alternate remedy (appeal) and alleging serious issues concerning the petitioner’s status, including involvement in issuing fake invoices for bogus ITC credit under GST laws.
The High Court acknowledged the respondents’ concerns about the petitioner’s conduct but also recognized the petitioner’s right to appeal the Order-in-Original. Balancing these competing interests, the court directed the Axis Bank branch to transfer the entire balance in the petitioner’s account to the Registrar of the High Court within two weeks. Upon receiving the funds, the Registrar was directed to transfer Rs. 8,76,564 to the 2nd respondent (tax authority). This amount would be considered the pre-deposit, enabling the petitioner to file an appeal against the Order-in-Original within four weeks of the transfer. The court clarified that if online filing was not feasible, the appellate authority should accept a physical appeal.
The remaining funds, after the pre-deposit transfer, would be invested by the Registrar in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank. This amount would be subject to the outcome of the appeal. The High Court specifically directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits, without considering any limitation issues, as the original writ petition had been filed within the limitation period for filing an appeal. The court emphasized that its observations were prima facie and should not influence the appellate authority’s decision. The rule was disposed of in these terms, with no order as to costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
