Ravid Multiventures Private Limited And Others vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Facts
The petitioners, Ravid Multiventures Private Limited & ors., filed writ petitions challenging a provisional attachment order of their bank accounts. The latest order of provisional attachment was 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 expired long ago, a fact not disputed by the respondents, who were the Union of India and DGGI.
Held
The Court held that the impugned provisional attachment order, passed on October 29, 2020, had lost its force in the eye of law. This decision was based on the admitted position that the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, had expired. The Court found that the respondents did not dispute this fact. Consequently, the Court declared that the attachment order had lost its legal efficacy. The reasoning was straightforward: the statutory period for the attachment had elapsed, rendering it unenforceable. The ratio decidendi is that a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, automatically ceases to have effect upon the expiry of one year from its date, as mandated by Section 83(2), unless extended or renewed in accordance with law. The operative direction was that all legal consequences of this declaration would follow automatically. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated October 29, 2020, has lost its force in the eye of law in view of the expiry of the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandates that a provisional attachment order shall not remain in force for more than one year from the date it was passed. They asserted that this one-year period had expired, rendering the order invalid. Revenue/State's contention: The respondents, including the Union of India and DGGI, did not dispute the petitioners' submission regarding the expiry of the one-year period under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 83(2), Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Item No.2 Ct. No.2 CHC WPA 1277 of 2021 Ravid 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.1277 of 2021 is disposed of by declaring that the impugned provisional attachment order has lost its force
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.