Florida Solvent Private Limited vs. State Of Maharashtra Thr The Chief Secretary Finance Dept And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Florida Solvent Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the continued attachment of its three bank accounts. The attachment was initiated by Respondent No. 3 through GST DRC-22 orders dated 26.08.2022 and 22.09.2022. The Petitioner's grievance was that the attachment was being continued in contravention of Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The State of Maharashtra and other respondents were the opposing parties. The tax period in dispute is not explicitly stated, but the attachment orders are dated August and September 2022.
Held
The Court accepted the statement made by the learned counsel for the Respondent-State that the attachment of the Petitioner's bank accounts had automatically lapsed after the expiry of one year, in view of the relevant statutory provision. The Court noted that a formal intimation to this effect would be issued to the Petitioner within one week. Consequently, as the attachment had already lapsed, the Petitioner was granted liberty to operate its bank accounts. The Court found no further adjudication of the petition to be necessary. The ratio decidendi is that statutory provisions regarding the lapse of provisional attachment must be adhered to, and if an attachment lapses by operation of law, the assessee is free to operate their accounts.
Key Issues
1. Whether the continued attachment of the Petitioner's bank accounts is in contravention of Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The Petitioner argued that the attachment could not be continued beyond the statutory period prescribed by Section 83(2). The Revenue (State of Maharashtra & Ors.) did not present a detailed argument but, on instructions, submitted that the attachment had automatically lapsed after one year as per the relevant statutory provision. They further stated that a formal intimation of this lapse would be issued to the Petitioner within one week.
Sections Cited
Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
8 WP 1618-26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1618 OF 2026 Florida Solvent Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents _______ Mr. Avinash Poddar i/b. Deepali Kamble for Petitioner. Ms. Shruti Vyas, Addl.G.P. a/w Avinash Deolekar, AGP for Respondent-State. _______ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 11th MARCH 2026 P.C.
This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:- “a) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Authorities to release the provisionally attached bank account vide GST DRC-22 dated 26.08.2022 and 22.09.2022 (Exhibit-F, G and L) issued by Respondent No.03 in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 83 of the Act. b) To issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s), or any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
The grievance of the Petitioner is that the attachment of the Petitioner’s three bank accounts, which is the subject matter of the present Petition, could not have been continued in contravention of the provisions of Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Laxmi LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE LAXMI SUBHASH SONTAKKE Date: 2026.03.13 11:40:43 +0530
8 WP 1618-26.DOC
Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, on instructions, submits that the attachment has automatically lapsed after the expiry of one year, in view of the relevant statutory provision and that a formal intimation to that effect shall be issued to the Petitioner within one week from today by the concerned officer. The said statement is accepted. As the attachment has already lapsed, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to operate its bank accounts.
In this view of the matter, further adjudication of this petition is not called for. It is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Laxmi
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.