Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010257482024 2025:GAU-AS:4326 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6431/2024 ABDUL KAHLEK MONDAL S/O MOKBUL HUSSAIN MONDAL R/O VILL- NORTH TOKRERCHARA, P.O. AND P.S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM PIN - 783334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FINANCE (TAXATION) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM 2:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES STATE GOODS AND SERVICE TAX KAR BHAWAN BISHNU PRASAD RAVA FLYOVER DISPUR GANESHGURI GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX DHUBRI 4:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX DHUBRI. 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER Page No.# 2/4 AXIS BANK LIMITED N.S. ROAD DHUBRI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D SARAF, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCE AND TAXATION, MR. P DAS (R-5) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 08.04.2025 1. Heard Mr. D Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B Gogoi, learned Additional Advocate General, Assam appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Mr. P Das, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned summary of show cause notice vide Form GST DRC-01 dated 11/09/2024 and impugned order dated 22/10/2024 vide Form GST DRC-07 dated 22/10/2024 issued by the respondent No.4. 3. According to the petitioner, the impugned order(s) have been wrongly issued under section 74 of the Assam Goods and Service Tax Act demanding Rs. 31,48,508/- from the petitioner along with applicable interest and penalty thereon based on refunds related to the period from April 2021 to August 2022. 4. Mr. Saraf, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will not pursue such challenge inasmuch as, he seeks a liberty to approach the appropriate forum permissible under law. Accordingly, this court has not entered into the aforesaid issues, Page No.# 3/4 however, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail the impugned actions in terms of the remedy available under law. However, it is made clear that the period spent in this court shall be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed. 5. The other challenge is the debit freeze of the bank account No.916020080314082. 6. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that they have debit freeze the account as per the request and communication issued by the respondent No.3 i..e, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax. 7. Mr. B Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent referring to the affidavit of the GST authorities submits that such debit freeze/seizure of the bank account was not in terms of section 83 of the AGST Act as projected by the petitioner, however, apprehending fraud, they have asked the bank to debit freeze the account so save public money. 8. This court has also perused the scheme of the Act, 2017. In the opinion of this court attachment can be carried out under section 83 of the AGST Act, 2017, in the given facts of the present case inasmuch as there are provisions of appeal against such order of attachment under Rule 159(5) of the Assam GST Rules, 2017. 9. Be that as it may, such action of debit freeze of the bank account, admittedly being without support of any prescribed provision of law, this court is left with no opinion but to held that such exercise was without jurisdiction. Accordingly, same stands interfered with. Page No.# 4/4 10. At this stage, Mr. Gogoi submits that the appropriate procedure under section 83 of the Act has already been initiated. 11. If that be so, this court will not comment on the validity or otherwise of such exercise of power, inasmuch as same is not subject matter of the present petition and the parties are left with their discretion to proceed in accordance with law. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant