Best Buildwell PVT. LTD Through Its Director Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra vs. Principal Commissioner Central Goods And Service Tax & Ors.

W.P.(C)/1687/2026HC DelhiGSTCNR DLHC01109656202514 September 2026Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL2 pages

For Petitioner: Mr. A K. Babbar and Mr. B.K. Tripathi, AdvsFor Respondent: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha SSC, CGST with Ms. Upasna Vashistha, Adv

AI SummaryAllowed

Held

The Delhi High Court, noting the maximum one-year period for provisional attachments and the respondent's concession based on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Kesari Nandan Mobiles*, declared that both the provisional attachment orders and the subsequent renewal order had lapsed.

Facts

The Petitioner's bank account was provisionally attached by the CGST Commissioner under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner's objections under Rule 159(5) were rejected. A renewal order for the attachment (GST DRC-22) was also issued.

Key Issues

Whether provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, including any purported renewals, lapse after the maximum statutory period of one year, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Sections Cited

Section 83, Rule 159(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

$~28 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC011096562025 + W.P.(C) 1687/2026 & CM APPL. 48725/2026 BEST BUILDWELL PVT. LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. SANJEEV MALHOTRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. A K. Babbar and Mr. B.K. Tripathi, Advs. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha SSC, CGST with Ms. Upasna Vashistha, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

O R D E R %

14.09.

2026

The Petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached on 13.01.2026 by the Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST), Delhi, in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Petitioner filed objections under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, which were rejected vide Order dated 12.11.2025. It is noted that a provisional attachment can remain in force for a maximum period of one year, unless a fresh order of provisional attachment is passed in accordance with law.

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that she has no objection if the order of provisional attachment is declared to have lapsed in view of the j

The judgment continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free account Sign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.