M/S Shyam Trading Company vs. Additional Director General, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence & Anr.
Held
The Court held that the provisional attachment order dated April 29, 2022, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, had ceased to be operative. This was based on the statutory provision that such an attachment order remains in effect for a period of one year from the date of its passing. Both the petitioner and the respondents acknowledged this fact. The Court noted that the period of one year had expired, and therefore, the order was no longer in force. The reasoning was straightforward: the law itself prescribes a time limit for the provisional attachment, and upon its expiry, the attachment automatically lapses. The ratio decidendi is that provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act are time-bound and automatically expire after one year. The Court directed respondent no.2 to take note of this order and act on the basis that the impugned order is no longer operative. The petitioner's grievance was deemed resolved, and no further orders were required.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shyam Trading Company, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an order dated April 29, 2022, passed by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence (respondent no.1). This order, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, provisionally attached the petitioner's bank account with Canara Bank. The respondents confirmed that the one-year period stipulated by Section 83 for the provisional attachment had expired, rendering the order inoperative. Consequently, the petitioner's grievance regarding the inability to operate its bank account no longer subsisted.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated April 29, 2022, passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, remains operative after the expiry of one year from its date? The petitioner contended that the impugned order of provisional attachment had become inoperative due to the lapse of the statutory period. The respondents, through their counsel, confirmed that the order had indeed ceased to have effect as per Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, upon the completion of one year from its issuance. No other arguments or reliance on specific provisions, circulars, or precedents were recorded for either party.
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 08.05.2023
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 29.04.2022 passed by respondent no.1 under Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘the CGST Act’), whereby the petitioner’s Current / Cash Credit Saving Account No.2983201000104 maintained with the Canara Bank was provisionally attached.
Admittedly, the period of one year is over since the said order was passed and the same is no longer operative.
Mr. Singla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, also confirms that in terms of Section 83 of the CGST Act, the impugned order dated 29.04.2022 ceased to have any effect on account of expiry of the period of one year from the date of
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.