M/S Senco Traders vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the impugned provisional attachment order dated November 13, 2020, had lost its force and was no longer valid in the eye of the law. This finding was based on the petitioner's submission, which was not contradicted by the CGST Authority, that the statutory period of one year from the date of the provisional attachment order, as stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, had expired. The Court observed that since the order had lost its validity, legal consequences would follow. The writ petition was disposed of with this observation. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Senco Traders, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order of its bank account dated November 13, 2020, issued by the CGST Authority. The petitioner contended that the attachment order had expired by operation of law, as it had been in effect for more than one year from the date of its issuance. The CGST Authority, represented by Mr. Banerjee, was unable to deny or contradict this factual assertion. The Court considered the submissions of both parties regarding the validity of the attachment order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated November 13, 2020, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, has lost its validity due to the expiry of the statutory period of one year as stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned provisional attachment order had expired and was no longer valid in the eyes of the law because the statutory period of one year from the date of the order had elapsed. They relied on the provisions of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Revenue's Contention: The CGST Authority, represented by Mr. Banerjee, could not deny or contradict the petitioner's assertion regarding the expiry of the statutory period. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions/precedents were recorded for the revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 ks WPA 19241 of 2022 sl. 12 M/s. Senco Traders Vs Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Suvranil Saha … For the Petitioner.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the CGST Authority.
Mr. P. S. Mondal … For the UOI.
Mr. A. Ray, Ld. GP., Md. T.M. Siddiqui, Mr. N. Chatterjee, Mr. V. Kothari … For the State.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
The main grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is against the impugned provisional attachment order of Bank Account in question of the petitioner dated 13th November, 2020 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition.
The petitioner further submits that the impugned provisional attachment order has already lost its life in view of expiry of one year from the date of provisional attachment order under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the CGST Authority, is not in a position to deny or contradict the factual positio
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.