Case Law Details
RHC Global Exports Private Limited & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
In the case of Rhc Global Exports Private Limited & Ors. Vs Union Of India & Ors., the Supreme Court of India addressed an application concerning the attachment of three bank accounts. The respondent-State’s counsel clarified that the attachment on the first account had lapsed on March 3, 2024, and there was no attachment on the second account. However, the third account, which had also lapsed on March 3, 2024, was subsequently reattached on August 30, 2024, under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioners’ counsel argued that reattaching the account was beyond the Department’s authority since the initial attachment had expired, and they sought a directive to lift the renewed attachment. They referenced a circular from September 2, 2023, which set a time-frame for procedural actions following an attachment’s expiry. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the lifting of the attachment on the third account, thereby allowing it to be defreezed, and disposed of the application accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for the respondent‑ State and others on the application filed by the petitioners herein.
During the course of submissions, learned senior counsel for the respondent-State submitted that three bank accounts are the subject matter of this application: the attachment in respect of the First Account (AccountNo.18961900005060) lapsed on 03.03.2024. That in fact there is no attachment of the Second Account (Account No.20012021006064) mentioned by the petitioners herein; that as far as the Third Account (Account No.916020074041235) is concerned although the attachment lapsed on 03.03.2024 by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act’) there has been a renewal of the attachment on 30.08.2024 and the third account is presently attached. There is no ground made outby the petitioners for lifting the said attachment. Hence,there is no merit in this application and the same may be dismissed.
In response to this submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioners stated that once the attachment expires by virtue of operation of law in termsf sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, there is no provision or jurisdiction vested with the Department to once again attach an account. In the circumstances, the attachment made on 30.08.2024 insofar as the third account is concerned is without authority of law and therefore, a direction may be issued for lifting of the said attachment. Submission was made that keeping in view the fact that the attachment of the first account has lapsed and that there is no attachment of the second account, a direction may be issued for lifting of the attachment insofar as the third account is concerned.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also brought to our notice a Circular dated 02.09.2023 and particularly to paragraph ‘3.1’ of the said Circular which prescribes a time-frame for the initiation and conclusion of proceedings and bearing in mind the effect of the expiry of the attachment in sub-section(2) of Section 83 of the Act.
Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we allow the application made by the petitioners herein. We direct that the attachment made of the third account by the respondent-State (Department) on 30.08.2024 be lifted and the account be defreezed.
The application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Author Bio
