M/S.Value Pharma Holistic Remedies Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Tax
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Value Pharma Holistic Remedies Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging the continuation of a provisional attachment order issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax (1st respondent) on February 21, 2024. The petitioner argued that the attachment, issued under Section 83 of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, had expired after one year, on February 21, 2025. The petitioner also stated that assessment proceedings initiated under Section 74 of the Act had concluded with adjudication orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (2nd respondent). The petition sought a declaration that the attachment order was invalid after its expiry and requested the court to direct the Bank of Baroda (4th respondent) to allow the petitioner to operate its bank accounts.
Held
The Court held that the provisional attachment order dated February 21, 2024, ceased to have effect upon the expiry of one year from its date, i.e., February 21, 2025, in accordance with Section 83(2) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017. The Court noted the consensus between the parties on this statutory mandate. The reasoning was based on the explicit provision of Section 83(2) which limits the duration of a provisional attachment to one year. The ratio decidendi is that statutory time limits for provisional attachments under GST law must be strictly adhered to, and such attachments automatically lapse upon expiry of the prescribed period. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition to the extent that the provisional attachment order was declared ineffective after February 21, 2025. The Court directed Respondent No. 4, the Bank of Baroda, to forthwith lift the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. No costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order issued under Section 83(1) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, ceases to be valid after the expiry of one year as stipulated in Section 83(2) of the Act, even if assessment proceedings have concluded. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that Section 83(2) of the CGST/TGST Act, 2017, mandates that a provisional attachment shall cease to operate after the expiry of one year from the date on which it was passed. Therefore, the attachment order dated February 21, 2024, should have become ineffective on February 21, 2025. The petitioner also contended that the continuation of the attachment after the conclusion of assessment proceedings was illegal and arbitrary. Revenue's Contention: The respondents (Commissioner of Commercial Tax, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, and State of Telangana) did not present any specific arguments against the petitioner's claim regarding the expiry of the attachment period. They agreed with the statutory mandate under Section 83(2) of the Act.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(2), Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SU.IOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA S/RIT PETITION No. 13797 of 2025 ORDER (Per the Hon'bte the Acting Chtef Justice Sujog Paul): Sri Vemireddy Bhaskar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel represents Sri V. Siddharth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. Chaitanya Kiran, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing Sri Su'aroop Oorilla. learned Special Government Pleader for State Tax, for respondent Nos l to 2. With the consent, finallY heard
During the course of hearing, iearned counsel for the parties fairly submit that in view of statutory mandate ingrained under Section 83(2) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2Ol7 (for short,'the Act'), the provisional attachment order dated 2l 'O2'2024 ceases to operate after one year. Thus, the said order dated 21.02.2024 may be treated to be ineffective with effect from 21.o2.2025. 4 In view of consensus arrived at, it is observed that the I I 3 provisional attachment ceased to have effect upon expiry of period I
rc 2 of one year fron 2 1.O2.2O24 as per sub-section (2) of Section 83 of rhe Act
Accordrnglr,, this Writ petition is allowed to the extent irdicated above . Respondent No.4-Bank shall fLnlhtuith lift the provisional attar hment of the petitioner,s account. \o costs. Interlo,'utory applications, if ar-ry pendrng, shall also stand closed .V.KAVITHA EPUTY REGISTRAR //// SECTION OFFICER 1 . The Commissioner of Commercial Tax, State of Telan(lana, Commercial Taxes Buildrr g, Nampally, Hyderabad.
The Assistani Commissioner of State Tax, Vengala Rao Nagar Circle, Punjagutta D vision, Hyderabad. Government of Telangana, Hyderabad
The Secretary Revenue, Secretariat building, T.S.,Hyderabad.
The Branch lulanager, Bank of Baroda, Srimalle Towers Branch, Punjagutta, Hyderabad.
One CC to SRl. V. SIDDHARTH REDDY ,Advocate pPUCI
One CC to SRl. A. KRANTI KUMAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
Two CCs to SPECIAL GP FOR STATE T AX, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 8 Two CD Cop'es B M/BSK To, n U
HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 ORDER WP.No.13797 of 2025 01 fiAr 2m CC TODAY 1HE S 14 sPrrlCBfI * + ./) (J ( .\ o. t Dp ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.