M/S.Bengal Kali Nirman Private Limited And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court held that the attachment order dated October 25, 2019, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, had lost its force. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that the maximum period for such an attachment is one year, and the respondent's admission that the tenure had not been extended. Therefore, the Court found the respondent bank's action in preventing the petitioner from operating their account on the basis of the expired attachment order to be legally unjustified. The ratio decidendi is that an attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, ceases to be operative upon the expiry of its maximum statutory period if not extended. The Court directed that the bank shall not act further on the basis of the impugned attachment order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Bengal Kali Nirman Private Limited & Ors., challenged the action of the respondent bank in preventing them from operating their bank account. This action was based on an order of attachment dated October 25, 2019, issued by the Deputy Director, DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that this attachment order had lost its force as the maximum period for an attachment under Section 83 is one year. The respondent CGST authority acknowledged that they had not extended the tenure of the attachment order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the attachment order dated October 25, 2019, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, has lost its force due to the expiry of its maximum validity period? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the attachment order, being subject to a maximum one-year validity under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, had expired and was therefore no longer legally effective. Consequently, the bank's continued refusal to allow operation of the petitioner's account based on this expired order was unjustified. Respondent's argument: The respondent CGST authority conceded that they had not extended the tenure of the attachment order dated October 25, 2019.
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2021 p.b. Sl. No.
W.P.A. 10019 of 2021 M/s. Bengal Kali Nirman Private Limited & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Via Video Conference) Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, Mr. Prabir Bera, Mr. Rajnish Kalawatia. ……for the petitioner. Mr. Somnath Ganguly, Mr. Sukalpa Seal, Ms. Priyanvada Singh. …….for the respondents. In this matter, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent bank not allowing the petitioner to operate the account in question of the petitioner on the basis of an order of attachment dated 25th October, 2019 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition passed by the Deputy Director, DGGI, Kolkata Zonal Unit under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submits that the aforesaid attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 has lost its force since the maximum period is one year of an order of attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the respondents CGST authority submits that his client has 2 not further extended the tenure of the aforesaid attachment order dated 25th October, 2019. Considering the submission of the parties, this writ peti
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.