Rajesh Kumar Patawa And Pravin Gulab Patil vs. Union Of India & Anr.
(Delhi High Court, Delhi)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
Rajesh Kumar Patawa And Pravin Gulab Patil
Union Of India & Anr.
Delhi High Court
Feb 2, 2021
Order No.
W.P.(C) 155/2021 and W.P.(C) 156/2021
TR Citation
2021 (2) TR 3816
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


1. The Petitioner in W.P.(C.) 155/2021 seeks quashing of the Form GST DRC-22 bearing C. No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ./GDE/GR.-1 /MISC./ dated 12th May, 2020 issued by Respondent No.2; and directions for de-freezing the bank account bearing No.1509050013192 of M/s Mansi Overseas maintained at the United Bank of India, A-81, C.R. Park Branch. Likewise, in W.P.(C.) 156/2021, Petitioner seeks quashing of the Form GST DRC-22 bearing C. No. IV (HQRS. PREV.)12/INQ./GDE/GR.-1/MISC./ dated 12th May, 2020 issued by Respondent No.2; and issuance of directions for de-freezing the bank account bearing No, 1509050013280 of M/s Pravin Trading Company maintained by the United Bank of India, A-81, C.R. Park Branch.

2. Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2 submits that pursuant to the search action carried out under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017 against two companies, a scam of fraudulent availment of the ITC in respect of 328 companies has been unearthed. In that context, the accounts of the Petitioners have been frozen under Section 83 of the Act. He further submits that there is an alternate efficacious statutory remedy available under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and the Petitioners should avail of the same, instead of knocking on the doors of the writ court seeking relief.

3. Counsel for the Petitioners states that the Petitioners are agreeable to the suggestion put forth by Mr. Harpreet Singh and are willing to take recourse to the remedy available under the CGST Rules and prays for a time-bound direction to the authorities to decide the objections which shall be filed by the Petitioners in accordance with Rule 159(5). Recently, in somewhat similar circumstances this Court in Ramakrishna Electro Components Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. [Order dated 14th January, 2021 in W.P. (C) No. 11180/2020] has relegated the Petitioner in that case to avail of the statutory remedy under Rule 159(5) by preferring objections before the concerned authority. Accordingly, we dispose of the present petition, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioners, granting them liberty to file their objections, under Rule 159(5) of the Rules, before the Deputy Commissioner, Anti-Evasion, CGST East, against the impugned provisional attachment/freezing of bank accounts. For this purpose, the Petitioners shall at the first instance appear before the abovementioned authority on Friday i.e., 5th February, 2021 at 11:30 AM along with their respective objections, and requisite documents. Thereafter, they shall continue to appear, if and when required and furnish all the information sought for by the Commissioner under Rule 159(5). The authority shall, within a period of two weeks of receipt of the objections, dispose of the same by way of necessary orders, after due intimation to the Petitioners. In case the Petitioners are aggrieved by the same, they shall be at liberty to pursue their remedies against the same, in accordance with law.

4. We clarify that we have not examined the merits of the case and the contentions of both the parties, including those urged in the present petitions, are left open. The concerned authority shall deal with the objections, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made hereinabove.

5. With the aforesaid directions, the petitions are disposed of.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • rajesh kumar patawa and pravin gulab patil vs union of india anr delhi high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096