Sumita 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 indeed 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 respondents' admission that they had not extended its tenure. Consequently, the Court found the respondent bank's action of preventing the petitioner from operating her bank 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 after the expiry of its statutory maximum period unless extended, and any action taken based on such an expired order is invalid. The Court directed 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, Smt. Sumita Goyal, challenged the action of the respondent bank in preventing her from operating her 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, representing 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, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, has lost its force due to the expiry of its maximum one-year tenure. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the attachment order, having been 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 order to one year. Therefore, the respondent bank's continued action of preventing her from operating her account based on this expired order was illegal. Revenue's arguments: 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. 10013 of 2021 Smt. Sumita 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. …….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 petition is disposed of
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.