Dinesh Kumar Goyal 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 contention that the maximum period for an attachment order under Section 83 is one year, and the respondent CGST authority's admission that they had not extended the tenure of the said order. Consequently, the Court found the respondent bank's action of not allowing the petitioner to operate his bank account on the basis of the expired attachment order to be legally unjustified. The operative direction was that the bank shall not act any further on the basis of the impugned attachment order dated October 25, 2019. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Sri Dinesh Kumar Goyal, challenged the action of the respondent bank in preventing him from operating his 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 the attachment order had lost its force as the maximum period for such an order under Section 83 is one year. The respondents, represented by the 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, passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, has lost its force due to the passage of time, specifically exceeding the maximum one-year period for such attachments. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the attachment order, issued on October 25, 2019, had expired by operation of law as Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, limits the duration of such an attachment to one year. Therefore, the bank's continued action based on this expired order was unjustified. Revenue's Argument: The respondents (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. 10015 of 2021 Sri Dinesh Kumar Goyal 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, Mr. Subhas Chandra Sarkar. …….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, t
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.