This intra court appeal is preferred by the 1st respondent in the writ petition, against the interim order dated 24.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge staying the directions contained in Clause 2(a) of Ext.P9. Ext.P9 directed the writ petitioner to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee and also to furnish an undertaking in the form of an affidavit stating that the petitioner shall not alienate any of its fixed assets, plant, property and equipment shown in the balance sheet dated 31.03.2020 till the disposal of the writ petition.

2. Appellant contended that the impugned order was granted by the learned Single Judge without considering the object of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’ for brevity) and also without appreciating the legality of the orders impugned in the writ petition.

3. The writ petitioner had challenged the order of provisional attachment of bank accounts issued in exercise of the powers under section 83 of the CGST Act. Subsequent to the orders of provisional attachment, appellant had directed restoration of the bank accounts to the writ petitioner as per Ext.P9 on condition of furnishing a bank guarantee equivalent to the credit balance available in that bank. By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge stayed the direction to furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee and instead directed the writ petitioner to furnish an undertaking before this Court in the form of an affidavit stating that the writ petitioner shall not alienate any of its fixed assets, plant, property and equipment shown in the balance sheet dated 31.03.2020 till the disposal of the writ petition.

4. We have heard Adv. Sreelal Warriar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant as well as Adv. M.P. Shameem Ahamed for the 1st respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent brought to our notice the provisions of section 83(2) of the CGST Act and submitted that the provisional attachment orders, which were produced in the writ petition as Ext.P6 series, had expired by operation of the statute itself and therefore there is no cause for any grievance by the appellant.

6. We notice that the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.3.2021. The provisional orders of attachment were issued on 15.7.2020. Having regard to the provisions of S.83(2), as brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the date of Ext.P6 order, apart from the decisions referred to by the learned Single Judge in the order under challenge, we are not persuaded to interfere in this intra court appeal.

7. However, in view of the difficulties expressed by the appellant, we grant liberty to the respondents in the writ petition to move appropriate applications before the learned Single Judge, in accordance with law, for any relief legally available to them in respect of the interim order already issued and which may be deemed to be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. With the above observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.