ORDER :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Mr. C.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surya Karan Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General along with Mr. N. Rajeshwar Rao, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7.

2. The matter was heard on February 17, 2022 on the interim prayer.

3. This writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs, viz.:

"(i) directing respondent No. 1 to release the goods valued at Rs. 8,50,47,384 seized illegally, arbitrarily, without jurisdiction, without authority of law and against principles of natural justice and in violation of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and provisions of Customs Act, 1962, notifications thereof, and provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and allow the goods to be further exported;

(ii) quashing the summons dated January 17, 2022 issued by respondent No. 1 and further directing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to conduct further investigation against the petitioner as the same was initiated without jurisdiction and without authority of law; and

(iii) directing respondent No. 1 to allow respondent Nos. 5 and 6/banks to defreeze the bank account of the petitioner and pass such further orders in the interest of justice."

4. Before we deal with the above three prayers made, we may mention that at the pre-admission stage, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7 have filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioner has filed reply-affidavit.

5. Regarding prayer No. 3, stand taken in the counter-affidavit is that goods and services tax (GST) Commissioner ate at Noida had issued letters to the banks of the petitioner, being respondent Nos. 5 and 6, to attach the accounts of the petitioner, as it is alleged that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation carried out by the GST Commissioner ate, Noida.

6. Regarding attachment of the bank account of the petitioner, we find that under section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (briefly, "the CGST Act" hereinafter), more particularly, under sub-section (1) thereof, Commissioner of GST has the power to provisionally attach bank account of a taxable person. As per sub-section, (1), where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 61 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74 of the CGST Act, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of Government revenue, it is necessary to do so, he may, by order in writing, attach provisionally any property including batik account belonging to a taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed. Sub-section (2), however, provides that such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).

7. We find that pleadings regarding attachment of bank account are wholly inadequate in the writ petition. That apart, the attachment of bank account of the petitioner has been carried out by the GST Commissioner ate, Noida, who is also not a party to the present proceeding.

8. In the circumstances, we grant liberty to the petitioner either to amend the present writ petition or to file separate writ petition challenging such attachment of bank account under section 83 of the CGST Act.

9. Insofar the second prayer is concerned, we may mention that as per the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 7, export by the petitioner of the goods in question is being investigated on the ground that the goods are of inferior quality and are grossly overvalued in order to obtain higher duty drawbacks, etc., of such export. Investigation is presently on. Therefore, at this stage, question of setting aside the summons dated January 17, 2022 would not arise.

10. Moreover, in our order dated February 2, 2022, we had made it clear that an authorised officer of the petitioner should appear before respondent No. 1 in terms of the aforesaid summons; and respond to the queries of the said of