ORDER

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: –

“a) issue a Writ of Mandamus or Certiorari, or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction, calling for the papers and proceedings leading to the records relating to blocking of sanctioned refund of Input Tax Credit of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.3448080/- (Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Forty Eight Thousand and Eighty Rupees) and after looking into the same and the legality thereof, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the action of Respondents regarding blocking of the sanctioned refund of Input Tax Credit of the Petitioner;

b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to direct the respondent no. 4 to unblock the amount of Rs. 3448080/- Rupees Thirty Four Lakh Forty Eight Thousand and Eighty Rupees) lying in the bank account of Petitioner.”

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the blocking of the petitioner’s bank account, of an amount of ₹34,48,080/-, which this Court has been informed, is the refund of the input tax credited to the bank account of the petitioner.

3. It appears that the said action has been taken on essentially three grounds. First, that there has been a mismatch in the payment made by the petitioner to the supplier in respect of the goods that are stated to have been exported. Second, it is stated that there are serious doubts as to whether any goods were procured from the supplier in question. The respondent’s claim that the investigation has revealed that the vehicles in which the goods were transported, had not entered Delhi and the petitioner did not have the necessary space to store the goods in question. Third, the petitioner had also procured goods from another supplier whose registration has been suo motu cancelled.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent states that in addition to the input credit of ₹34,48,080/-, a sum of approximately ₹15 lacs had been released earlier.

5. In view of the above, the order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 would be confined to freezing the petitioner’s bank account to the extent of ₹50 lacs. In another words, the petitioner would not be entitled

to withdraw any amount from the bank account till a credit balance of ₹50 lacs is achieved. The petitioner would be entitled to operate the bank account and withdraw any amount in excess of a credit balance of ₹50 lacs.

6. Insofar as the reasons for taking an action under Section 83 of the CGST Act is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents states that the counter-affidavit, filed in this Court, may be considered as the reasons for taking the said action.

7. The petitioner had approached this court as its bank account was blocked by issuing a letter to the concerned bank and without passing any order under the CGST. The respondents have now passed an order under Section 83 of the CGST Act. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of.

8. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the petitioner are reserved to take statutory remedies.