Poonam Jaiswal vs. The Superitendent ,Anti Evasion Department And Others

Held

The Court held that, in view of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, a provisional attachment order ceases to have effect upon the expiry of one year from the date of the order. Since the impugned order was passed on November 5, 2020, and the current date of hearing was beyond one year from that date, the order could no longer have any force in the eye of law. Consequently, the petitioner would be allowed to operate the bank account in question. The Court disposed of the writ petition with this observation and direction.

Facts

The petitioner, Poonam Jaiswal, challenged a provisional attachment order of her bank account, passed on November 5, 2020, by the Superintendent, Anti Evasion Department. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The respondents were the Superintendent, Anti Evasion Department, and others. The core of the challenge revolved around the validity and duration of the provisional attachment order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment order of the petitioner's bank account, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, has ceased to have effect after the expiry of one year from its date of issue? The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order, passed on November 5, 2020, had expired by operation of law as it had completed one year. Therefore, the bank account should be de-attached and the petitioner allowed to operate it. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.