The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.

1. The Division Bench of this court, vide order dated 23.12.2021 in W.P.(C) NO. 14848/2021, had directed the petitioner’s bank account to be de-frozen.

2. It is not in dispute that the account could have been frozen at best for one year under s.83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘the Act’). The bank account of the petitioner was frozen on 14.07.2020, its validity expired on 13.07.2021. Despite that, for some reasons, the account was not de-frozen after that date and the petitioner had to approach the court, which resulted in the aforesaid relief to it.

3. Therefore, the petitioner’s bank account was purportedly de-frozen vide a letter issued by respondents to the Bank concerned on 28.12.2021. This letter was apparently received by the Bank on 29.12.2021. The petitioner says, on the basis of a communication received by the bank from the respondents, that on the same day, the bank account was simultaneously frozen again and provisionally attached. The petitioner was issued summon a day later i.e. on 30.12.2021.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even prior to issuance of the said notice, the petitioner’s account had been frozen; that the aforesaid direction of the Division Bench has been made nugatory on account of the action of the respondents, which ex facie is mala fide.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the action initiated by respondents against the petitioner is primarily for recovery of taxes; the petitioner had not cooperated in the earlier round of proceedings under s.83 (1) of the Act and there is no bar to the re-initiation of the proceedings. The aforesaid summon issued to the petitioner, is to be replied to by today. The learned counsel for the petitioner refutes the allegation of non-cooperation, she refers to para 6 of the order dated 23.12.2021. She states that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate and to answer all such valid notices as may be issued to it by the respondent department.

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks some time to obtain instructions. Having done so, she states that she would like to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies as may be available in law, before the appropriate forum.

7. In view of the above, the petition, along with pending application, is dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty granted.

8. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.