Pushpendra Singh vs. Superintendant , Range Vi(CGST & Cx), Shyambazar & Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Pushpendra Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order of provisional attachment of his bank account dated May 13, 2019, passed by the Superintendent, Range VI (CGST & CX) Shyambazar Division, Kolkata North Commissionerate. The petitioner contended that under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, an attachment order cannot survive for more than one year. The petitioner stated that one year from the date of the order expired on May 30, 2020. The CGST authority did not present any evidence of a further extension order before the expiry of this statutory period. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on December 14, 2020.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of provisional attachment dated May 13, 2019, has lost its force and validity. The reasoning was based on the statutory provision of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which limits the survival of an attachment order to one year. The Court noted that the petitioner's contention regarding the expiry of this period on May 30, 2020, was not refuted by the CGST authority, who could not show any further extension order. Therefore, by virtue of the statutory provision, the attachment order does not survive and cannot be continued. The Court also noted the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration on December 14, 2020, but stated it was not inclined to interfere with that order as it was not the subject matter of the present writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the attachment order has lost its force. The operative direction was that the attachment order has lost its force and all legal consequences will follow automatically.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order of provisional attachment of the bank account dated May 13, 2019, has lost its force and validity in view of the expiry of the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, without any further extension order being produced by the revenue authority. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandates that no order of attachment can survive beyond one year. As the one-year period from the date of the order (May 13, 2019) expired on May 30, 2020, and no extension was shown, the attachment order has automatically ceased to be effective. Revenue's contention: The revenue authority, represented by Mr. K.K. Maiti, informed the court that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on December 14, 2020, during the pendency of the writ petition. No specific argument was made regarding the validity of the attachment order itself beyond the statutory period.