M/S Onrise Barter PVT LTD And Anr vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order of attachment of the petitioners' bank account, which was communicated to the petitioners by their bank on June 13, 2022, was not sustainable in law. The Court found that the attachment had lost its force in view of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The reasoning was that the statutory period of one year for the provisional attachment to remain effective had expired. Consequently, the Court quashed the aforesaid impugned order of attachment, and legal consequences would follow. The Court directed the learned Advocate for the petitioners to communicate this order to the bank in question. The issue of the CGST Authority's inaction on the representation was implicitly addressed by quashing the attachment order.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s. Onrise Barter Private Limited & Anr., challenged an order passed by the CGST Authority attaching their bank account on May 29, 2019. The petitioners argued that the attachment order had lost its force due to the expiry of the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, as more than three years had passed since the order. They were also aggrieved by the CGST Authority's inaction in considering their representation dated July 18, 2022, seeking redressal for the continued attachment. The Union of India was represented, but the CGST Authority did not appear despite service.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioners' bank account, made on May 29, 2019, has ceased to have effect in view of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, due to the expiry of the one-year period from the date of the order. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandates that all provisional attachments shall cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order. As more than three years had passed since the attachment order dated May 29, 2019, it was no longer sustainable. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the respondent Union of India or the CGST Authority regarding this issue.
Sections Cited
Section 83(2), Section 83(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 ks WPA 18628 of 2022 sl. 24 M/s. Onrise Barter Private Limited & Anr.
Vs Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Arijit Chakrabarti, Mr. N. Chowdhury, Mr. Prabir Bera … For the Petitioner.
Mr. Amit Kumar Chaturvedi … For the UOI.
Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners files affidavit-of-service, which may be kept with the record.
None appears on behalf of the respondent, CGST Authority in spite of service.
Learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.1, Union of India is present.
By this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned order passed by the CGST Authority attaching its Bank Account in question on 29th May, 2019, which according to the petitioners at present is not sustainable since it has lost its force in view of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 under which all provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of period of one year from the date of order made under Section 83(1) of the Act and in the instant case more than three years have be
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.