Debabrata Banerjee vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr.
Held
The Court held that the impugned provisional attachment order dated October 5, 2020, had lost its force and was no longer valid in the eyes of the law due to the expiry of the one-year period prescribed under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court observed that since the statutory period had expired, the order was no longer effective. Consequently, the legal consequences of this declaration would follow. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Debabrata Banerjee, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order of his bank account dated October 5, 2020, issued by the respondent-authorities. The petitioner also contended that his representation dated October 12, 2020, against the attachment order remained unconsidered. A key submission by the petitioner was that the provisional attachment order had expired by operation of law, having completed one year from its date of issue under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The customs authority, represented by Mr. Dey, could not deny this factual position.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated October 5, 2020, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, remains valid in light of the expiry of the statutory period of one year as stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order had lost its efficacy and was no longer valid due to the expiry of the one-year period. The revenue (customs authority) did not contest this assertion, acknowledging that the statutory period had indeed expired.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
14-12-2021 Item No.27 Subrata IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side WPA No.9845 of 2020 Debabrata Banerjee -vs- Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Suryaneel Das …for the petitioner Mr. Kaushik Dey Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree …for the customs 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 October 5, 2020 (Annexure P8), and further non- consideration and sitting tight over the representation made by the petitioner before the respondent-authorities dated October 12, 2020 (Annexure P10).
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 Dey, learned advocate appearing for the customs authority, is not in a position to deny or contradict the factual position which appears from records that now statutory period of one year has already expired, as appears from the date of provisiona
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.