Case Details: Kirti Deora vs. State of West Bengal (2026) 40 Centax 288 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Om Narayan Rai, J.
- S/Shri Debasish Ghosh, Ms Megha Agarwal, Ms Tulika Roy, Piyush Khaitan & Ankit Kanaria, for the Petitioner.
- Ms Soni Ojha, S/Shri Arijit Chakraborty, Debsoumya Basak & Ms Swati K. Singh, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The officer in charge of the police station at Papumpare, Arunachal Pradesh, issued a notice to the branch manager of the petitioner’s bank directing a debit freeze on the petitioner’s account. The bank proceeded to freeze the account in compliance with the notice. The petitioner approached the Calcutta High Court by way of a writ petition challenging the debit freezing of the bank account by police authorities. The department submitted that the freeze arose in the course of an investigation initiated upon a complaint lodged by the CGST authorities in Arunachal Pradesh. It was further contended that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The petitioner submitted that the writ petition was confined solely to the arbitrary debit freezing of the account and that the main part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, as the account was maintained within its limits. It was clarified that the petition did not seek to quash the investigation by police authorities or proceedings initiated by CGST authorities. The matter was accordingly placed before the Calcutta High Court.
High Court Held
The Calcutta High Court held that the debit freezing of the bank account without obtaining approval under Section 106 or Section 107 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was invalid. The Court observed that there was no record of the investigation officer approaching the Magistrate, and no seizure or attachment order had been passed or reported to the Magistrate. The impugned notice was therefore not in accordance with law. The Court further noted that, as the writ petition was confined solely to the debit freezing and did not seek to interfere with the investigation conducted by police authorities or proceedings initiated by CGST authorities, the petitioner was not required to demonstrate illegality of those proceedings. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the debit freeze and directed the bank to allow operation of the account.
List of Cases Cited
- Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. UOI — 2004 (168) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 7, 14, 15, 20]
- Nawal Kishore Sharma v. UOI — (2014) 9 SCC 329 — Followed [Paras 10, 21]
- State of Goa v. Summit Online Trade Solutions (P.) Ltd. — (2023) 4 Centax 280 (S.C.) = 2023 (72) G.S.T.L. 129 (S.C.) — Followed [Paras 7, 16]
- Tamasha Samanta v. UOI — WPA 19956 of 2025, dated 9-12-2025 by Calcutta High Court — Relied on [Paras 11, 29]
- Venkata Sai Ram Traders v. Customers, Central Excise Service Tax Settlement Commission — 2018 (9) G.S.T.L. 235 (Mad.) — Distinguished [Paras 7, 23]
