Sultan Mahmood Khan vs. Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged a provisional attachment order of his bank account issued under Section 83 of the CGST/KGST Act, arguing it had subsisted beyond the statutory one-year period. The petitioner sought to quash the order and operate his bank account.
Held
The High Court, relying on an Apex Court precedent, held that a provisional attachment order under Section 83 lapses after one year and no fresh order can be issued thereafter. Consequently, the petitioner's attachment order was deemed to have lapsed, entitling him to operate his account.
Key Issues
Can a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST/KGST Act subsist beyond one year, and can a fresh attachment order be issued after its statutory lapse?
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the Provisional Attachment Order dated 02.05.2024 [Annexure-B] under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short, ‘the Act’]. The petitioner's grievance is with the order subsisting beyond the one year contemplated under Section 83 of the Act. The reliance is upon the Apex Court's Judgment in ‘Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Office of the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax [2] Enforcement Division – 5’1. Sri Shreehari Kutsa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K Hemakumar, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who accepts notice for the respondents, are heard for disposal of the petition. This Court must observe that with the Apex Court's decision in the case of Kesari Nandan Mobile
1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2075 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29255 [supra] two propositions are beyond dispute. The first proposition is that the Provisional Attachment Order will have to lapse after the statutory period of one year and that the concerned must not be compelled to approach High Courts for lifting of the Provisional Order. The second proposition is that after the lapse of the Provisional Attachment Order with the lapse of one year, there cannot be another attachment order.
This Court must refer to paragraphs 30 and 36 of the Apex Court's Judgment, which read as under:
“30. That apart, having regard to the draconian nature of power conferred on the Revenue by sub-section (1) of section 83 of the CGST Act to levy a provisional attachment, the terms of the entire section have to be construed in a manner so that sub-section (2) of section 83 is not effectively reduced to a dead letter. We are reminded of the maxim ut res magis valeat quam pereat. It is an interpretive doctrine that a legal text, specially a statute, should be interpreted in a way that gives the document force rather than makes it fail. Conceding power to the Revenue to issue a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29255 fresh provisional order of attachment after the initial order has lapsed by operation of law or to renew the same would render the text of sub-section (2) of section 83 otiose and accepting the reason assigned by the Gujarat High Court would permit the Revenue to exercise a power which is not the statutory intendment. We, therefore, see no reason to read section 83 in a manner to confer any additional power over and above the draconian power conferred by sub-section (1) and upon lapse as ordained by sub-section (2).
It would seem rather incongruous and redundant that parties must approach the High Courts to seek enforcement of a law already in force. The deliberate non-compliance by the Revenue to implement statutory protection would undermine the rule of law and render the action not only susceptible to vulnerability but also being set at naught.”
In the light of the afore, the petitioner must succeed in the challenge against the Order dated 02.05.2024 and with the observation that the petitioner will be HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29255 entitled to operate its account unless there are other proceedings. The petition is allowed accordingly. (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE
AN/-
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.