Azhar Sekh vs. Commissioner, Kol South CGST And Cx Commissioneratte And Ors
Facts
The petitioner, Azhar Sekh, challenged an order of provisional attachment of his bank account dated February 18, 2021, passed by the Commissioner, Kolkata South CGST & CX Commissionerate. The petitioner argued that under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, an order of attachment cannot survive for more than one year. The petitioner contended that one year had expired on February 18, 2021, from the date of the impugned order. The respondents, including the CGST & CX authorities, were unable to produce any order for further extension of the attachment period.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order of provisional attachment dated February 18, 2021, had lost its force. The Court reasoned that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, clearly states that no order of attachment can survive beyond one year from its date. Since one year had expired on February 18, 2021, and the GST authority could not produce any order for extension before the expiry of this statutory period, the attachment order automatically ceased to be effective. The ratio decidendi is that statutory time limits for provisional attachments under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, are binding, and failure to obtain an extension within that period renders the attachment invalid. The Court directed that the pending investigation be expedited by the concerned authority in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order of provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account dated February 18, 2021, has lost its force in view of the expiry of the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandates that an order of provisional attachment shall not remain in force for a period exceeding one year from the date on which it was passed. As the order was passed on February 18, 2021, and one year had expired on February 18, 2021, the attachment order had ceased to be operative. Revenue's contention: The respondent CGST & CX authorities did not demonstrate any further extension order for the attachment beyond the statutory period.
Sections Cited
Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 & CX Commissionerate & Ors. Mr. Rowsan Kumar Jha … For the Petitioner. Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee, Mr. Tapan Bhanja … For the Respondent CGST & CX. Ms. Khushboo Choudhary … For the Respondent No.
Mr. Subhadip Paramanik … For the Respondent No.
Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned order of provisional attachment of bank account in question dated February 18, 2021. Petitioner submits that in view of section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, no order of attachment can survive after expiry of one year and in this case, admittedly, one year has already expired on February 18, 2021 from the date of passing of the impugned order of provisional attachment. In view of the statutory provision of section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, I am of the view that the aforesaid impugned order of attachment dated February
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.