JUDGMENT :

Om Narayan Rai, J.

1. It has been pointed out that there are two typographical errors in the order dated January 30, 2026. WPA “1785 of 2026” shall be corrected as WPA “1785 of 2025”. In the last line of second paragraph of the said order, the expression “Andhra Pradesh” shall be replaced by the expression “Arunachal Pradesh”. Let the aforesaid corrections be incorporated in the order dated January 30, 2026.

2. This writ petition has been filed alleging arbitrary debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account on the basis of a notice dated January 06, 2025 issued by the respondent no.3.

3. A notice dated January 6, 2025 had been issued by the respondent no.3 i.e. the Officer-in-charge, Police Station Itanagar, Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh to the Branch Manager, ICICI Bank thereby calling upon the addressee of the notice, inter alia, to debit freeze the Account bearing No.104905500535 standing in the name of the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the bank proceeded to debit freeze the petitioner’s bank account and informed the petitioner about the same. Assailing such act of debit freeze of the petitioner’s bank account, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

5. At the very outset, Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST authorities has taken a preliminary objection and contended that this Court should not entertain the writ petition inasmuch as this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Chakraborty that since the petitioner’s Bank account has been directed to be debit frozen in course of an investigation undertaken by the police authorities upon a complaint being lodged by the CGST authorities in Arunachal Pradesh, the respondent Police authorities have their respective seats in Arunachal Pradesh and since the proceedings under the CGST Act, 2017 are also being conducted in Arunachal Pradesh, therefore, this writ petition should be filed in the High Court of Guwahati and this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same.

7. In support of his contention he has relied on the following judgments

i. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. UOI, reported at 2004 (168) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.),

ii. State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions Pvt. Ltd., reported at (2023) 4 Centax 280 (S.C.) and

iii. Venkata Sai Ram Traders v. CUS., C.Ex. & S.T. Sett. Comm., Chennai, reported at 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 235 (Mad.)

8. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that this writ petition is only confined to the arbitrary debit freezing of the petitioner’s bank account at the instance of the police authorities and the entire cause of action therefor has arisen within the territorial limits of this Court. It is submitted that as the petitioner’s bank account is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court therefore, the act of attachment/debit freezing has also occurred within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been adversely affected within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and therefore this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.

9. He further submits that the petitioner is neither challenging the action of the CGST authorities nor the investigation conducted by the police officer by way of the present writ petition, and that, the subject matter of the present writ petition is only the debit freezing of the petitioner’s account.

10. In support of his contention that since the petitioner’s rights have been infringed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court therefore, the petitioner can very well maintain this writ petition before this Court, Mr. Ghosh has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. reported at (2014) 9 SCC 329.

11. Mr. Ghosh has also relied on a Coordinate Bench judgment of this Court, in the case of Tamasha Samanta