Kavika Multiventures Private Limited And Others vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Facts
The petitioners, Kavika Multiventures Private Limited & ors., challenged a provisional attachment order of their bank account, with the latest order being passed on October 29, 2020. The petitioners contended that under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, a provisional attachment order cannot survive for more than one year from its date of passing. This period had admittedly expired long before the present proceedings. The respondents, including the Union of India and the DGGI, did not dispute this contention.
Held
The Court held that the impugned provisional attachment order had lost its force in the eye of law. This finding was based on the admitted position that the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, from the date of passing of the order, had expired. The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the Court declared that the attachment order had lost its force, and all legal consequences would follow automatically. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.
Key Issues
1. Whether a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, remains valid beyond the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioners' contention: The petitioners argued that the provisional attachment order had lost its force in the eye of law due to the expiry of the one-year period as mandated by Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. They stated that this expiry had occurred long ago, and the respondents did not dispute this fact. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, represented by the Union of India and DGGI, did not dispute the petitioners' submission regarding the expiry of the one-year period and the consequent loss of force of the attachment order.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Item No.3 Ct. No.2 CHC WPA 1280 of 2021 Kavika Multiventures Private Limited & ors. Vs. The Union of India & ors. Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, Mr. Koustav Lal Mukherjee, Mr. Chiranjit Pal, Mr. Prabir Bera …for the petitioners Mr. Rivu Dutta, Mr. Rhitam Chatterjee …for the U.O.I. Ms. Manasi Mukherjee …for DGGI Supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners be kept with the record. Heard learned advocates for the parties. By these writ petitions petitioners challenged the impugned provisional attachment order of the bank account of the petitioners and lastly, fresh order of provisional attachment was passed on 29th October, 2020. Petitioners submit that in view of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 no provisional attachment order will survive after expiry of one year from the date of passing of the order and in this case,
it is an admitted position that such expiry has been taken place long back and learned advocate for the respondents do not dispute this. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission of the parties this writ petition being W.P.A.1280 of 2021 is disposed of by declaring that the impugned provisional attachment order has lost its forc
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.