M/S Tehri Iron And Steel Casting LTD vs. Additional Director General, Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax Intelligence And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions had become infructuous. The Court noted that the only provisional attachment orders under challenge were dated March 11, 2024, and that one year had already lapsed in terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act. The Court stated that if the Petitioner wished to challenge any subsequent attachment orders, they were free to do so in accordance with law. The Court explicitly mentioned that all rights and remedies were left open and that the merits of the contentions were not considered. The petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Tehri Iron and Steel Casting Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging the provisional attachment of two of its bank accounts. The attachment orders were issued on March 11, 2024. The Petitioner contended that a period of one year had lapsed since the issuance of the attachment orders, as stipulated by Section 83 of the CGST Act, and that the subsequent issuance of fresh attachment orders for the same accounts was contrary to law. The Petitioner relied on a Supreme Court decision in Civil Appeal No. 9543/2025, 'Kesari Nandan Mobile Vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax'. The Respondent argued that the writ petition was challenged on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Court noted that the challenged attachment orders were dated March 11, 2024, and that one year had lapsed as per Section 83 of the CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of fresh provisional attachment orders for the Petitioner's bank accounts, after the lapse of one year from the initial attachment orders, is contrary to Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9543/2025 ('Kesari Nandan Mobile Vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax')? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that the one-year period stipulated in Section 83 of the CGST Act had lapsed, rendering the subsequent attachment orders illegal and contrary to the Supreme Court's decision. Revenue's Argument: The Respondent argued that the writ petition was challenged on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The judgment does not record any further arguments from the Respondent regarding the validity of the attachment orders in light of Section 83.