Abdul Aziz Malik vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Abdul Aziz Malik, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated 14.05.2019. This order, passed under Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account. The attachment was made by the revenue authorities. The petition was filed in 2024. The court noted that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act stipulates that a provisional attachment order under Section 83(1) ceases to be operative after one year from its issuance.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.05.2019, which provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account, is no longer operative. This finding is based on the clear mandate of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, which stipulates that any order passed under Section 83(1) shall not be operative after the expiry of one year from the date of its issuance. Since the order was passed on 14.05.2019, it had concededly expired and was not in effect at the time the petition was considered. Consequently, the Court directed the concerned bank not to interdict the petitioner from operating its bank account on the basis of the impugned order. The Court clarified that this order was confined solely to the impugned provisional attachment order and would not affect any other orders passed by the respondents or any other authority.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order of provisional attachment dated 14.05.2019, passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, is still operative given the statutory period of one year prescribed under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act? The petitioner argued that the impugned order is no longer operative as it was issued more than one year prior to the filing of the petition, and Section 83(2) of the CGST Act clearly states that such an order shall not be operative after the expiry of one year from its issuance. The revenue authorities, through their counsel, accepted notice and did not present any counter-arguments regarding the operative status of the order.
Sections Cited
Section 83(1), Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 02.09.2024
Issue notice. The learned counsel for the respondents accepts notice.
The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 14.05.2019 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act) whereby the petitioner’s bank account bearing No.00032000024013 maintained with HDFC Bank, KG Marg, New Delhi, was provisionally attached.
In terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, any order passed under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act would not be operative after expiry of the period of one year from the date of the issuance of such order.
In view of the above, concededly, the impugned order is not operative as on date.
Thus, we consider it apposite to direct that the concerned bank shall not interdict the petitioner from operat
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.
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.