RHC Global Exports Private Limited & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors
Date: September 17, 2024
Court: Supreme Court
Bench:
Type: Special Leave to Appeal
Subject Matter
Once provisional attachment expires, no provision or jurisdiction is vested with the Department to once again attach the account
Summary
In the case of Rhc Global Exports Private Limited & Ors. vs. Union Of India & Ors., the Supreme Court addressed a dispute over the attachment of three bank accounts by the Department under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The first account's attachment had lapsed, and there was no attachment on the second account. However, the third account, which also had its attachment lapse on March 3, 2024, was reattached by the Department on August 30, 2024. The petitioners contested this reattachment, arguing it exceeded the Department's authority as the original attachment had expired. They cited a circular dated September 2, 2023, which outlined procedural timeframes after attachment expiry. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, instructing the lifting of the renewed attachment on the third account and ordering its defreezing, thereby disposing of the application.
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.