Md Shadab Mallick vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the impugned provisional attachment order dated November 5, 2020, had indeed lost its force and was no longer valid in the eyes of the law. This finding was based on the petitioner's submission, which the respondent CGST authority could not refute, that the statutory period of one year from the date of the provisional attachment order had expired. The Court reasoned that once the statutory period under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, lapses, the attachment order ceases to have legal effect. Consequently, the Court declared that legal consequences would follow from this declaration. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, implying that the attachment was no longer enforceable.
Facts
The petitioner, Md. Shadab Mallick, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order of his bank account dated November 5, 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 respondent CGST authority, represented by Mr. Ganguli, was unable to deny or contradict this factual assertion regarding the expiry of the statutory period. The court considered the submissions of both parties.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated November 5, 2020, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, has lost its validity due to the expiry of the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order had become invalid as the statutory period of one year from the date of the order had expired, rendering it legally defunct. The petitioner relied on Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, which specifies the duration for which a provisional attachment order remains in force. Revenue's contention: The respondent CGST authority, represented by Mr. Ganguli, was not in a position to deny or contradict the petitioner's assertion regarding the expiry of the one-year period. No specific arguments or reliance on provisions were recorded for the revenue.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
34 17.01.2022 sb Ct 2
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
(Through Video Conference)
WPA 21336 of 2021
Md. Shadab Mallick Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Suvranil Saha
…. For the petitioner.
Mr. Sujit Mitra
… For Union of India.
Mr. Somnath Ganguli,
Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree
… For the respondent nos. 2 to 5
Heard the 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 5th November, 2020 (Annexure P-8).
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 CGST Act, 2017. Mr. Ganguli, learned advocate appearing for the CGST authority, is not in a position to den
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.