Delhi HC Recalls Interim Relief to Ebix Over Misrepresentation of Attachment Letter Receipt Date.
Issue
Whether a petitioner is entitled to retain an interim relief order (lifting bank attachment) obtained from the High Court if it is subsequently found that they made a prima facie misrepresentation regarding the date of receipt of the impugned order, and whether an existing injunction from another High Court impacts the relief.
Facts
Background: Ebix Technologies had approached the Delhi High Court challenging the provisional attachment of its 11 bank accounts by the DGGI in relation to an investigation into alleged fraudulent Input Tax Credit (ITC) worth ₹3.1 crore involving its service provider.
Interim Relief: In an earlier hearing, the High Court granted interim relief, allowing Ebix to operate the accounts subject to maintaining a balance of ₹1 crore, primarily because the attachment seemed disproportionate and the communication appeared delayed (Ebix claimed they received the order only on November 4, 2025, via WhatsApp).
Revenue’s Rebuttal: The DGGI produced the dak register, which showed that the attachment letter was physically delivered to Ebix on October 10, 2025.1 This contradicted Ebix’s claim of first knowledge on November .
Parallel Proceedings: It was brought to the Court’s notice that the Bombay High Court (in Ashok Kumar Goel) had already issued an interim injunction restraining dealings in movable assets, including bank balances, of the same entity.
Decision
The Delhi High Court recalled its earlier interim order that had permitted Ebix to operate the bank accounts.
Misrepresentation: The Court found prima facie evidence that Ebix had misrepresented the date of receipt of the attachment order. Approaching the writ court with “unclean hands” is a ground to deny or revoke discretionary relief.
Conflict with Bombay HC: The Court noted that its earlier order allowing operations conflicted with the Bombay High Court’s existing injunction on movable assets.
Directions:
The attachment of the bank accounts continues (effectively reinstating the freeze).
Ebix must still maintain the ₹1 crore balance across accounts as per the security interest.
The Revenue was directed to furnish detailed reasons for the attachment within one week to allow Ebix to file objections.
Key Takeaways
Clean Hands Doctrine: Writ jurisdiction is equitable. Any misstatement of material facts—especially dates that affect limitation or urgency—can lead to the immediate revocation of favorable orders.
Impact of Parallel Orders: High Courts respect comity. An order from one High Court (Delhi) generally cannot override an active injunction issued by another High Court (Bombay) regarding the same assets.
Date of Communication Evidence: The department’s internal records (like a dak register) carry significant evidentiary weight against a taxpayer’s claim of non-receipt, unless proven otherwise.
Reasons for Attachment: Despite the recall, the Court reiterated the department’s obligation to provide specific reasons for provisional attachment under Section 83 to ensure due process.