Shahid Glass vs. Assistant Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax

CW/4481/2023HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02019723202307 March 2024Bench: MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA,BHUWAN GOYAL2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, Shahid Glass, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, and Rule 86A of the RGST Rules, 2017. The order was passed on January 27, 2023. The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment had ceased to have effect by operation of law due to the sunset clause in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, which limits the attachment period to one year from the date of the order. The petitioner noted that the electronic ledger had been revived but the original attachment order had not been recalled. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax, sought time to seek instructions.

Held

The Court held that the provision of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, is crystal clear. This sub-section mandates that a provisional attachment order automatically comes to an end by operation of law and cannot continue beyond the stipulated period. The Court found that the maximum period of provisional attachment, as prescribed by the sunset clause, had expired. Consequently, the provisional attachment order against the writ petitioner no longer survived and had ceased to exist in the eyes of the law. The Court observed that due to these changed circumstances, the petition was disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order, in light of the sunset clause contained in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, provides a clear sunset clause, stipulating that a provisional attachment order automatically ceases to have effect after one year from its issuance. Therefore, the order dated January 27, 2023, had expired by operation of law on January 27, 2024, and could not continue, even though the electronic ledger had been revived. The petitioner relied on the explicit wording of Section 83(2). Revenue's Argument: The learned counsel for the State submitted that the matter required examination and requested time to seek instructions.

Sections Cited

Section 83, Rule 86A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4481/2023 Shahid Glass, Through Its Proprietor Shri Shahid Mansuri Having Its Address F-236, Kahrani, Riico Industrial Area, Kahrani, Choupanki, Main Road, Bhiwadi-302019 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax, Division-I, Circle-A, Having Address At Divisional Office, Near Ashiana Bagheecha, Alwar Bypass Road, Bhiwadi-301019. 2. Joint Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax, Division-I, Circle-A, Having Address At Divisional Office, Near Ashiana Bagheecha, Alwar Bypass Road, Bhiwadi- 301019. 3. Chief Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Ms. Apeksha Bapna For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order 07/03/2024

Heard.

This petition has been filed against an order of provisional attachment issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 86A of the RGST, Rule 2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the provisional attachment order was passed on 27.01.2023 and thereafter, this petition has remained pending. According to

(2 of 2) [CW-4481/2023] learned counsel, even assuming that the provisional attachment could be done, in view of sunset clause (2) contained in Section 83 of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment ceases to have effect after expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order of provisional attachment, that is, 27.01.2023. He would submit that electronic ledger has been revived but the order passed on 27.01.2023 has not been recalled.

Learned counsel for the State would submit that this matter may require examination and some time may be granted to seek instructions.

Provision of Section 83 of sub-Section (2) is crystal clear. The provisional attachment order comes to an end automatically by operation of law and cannot continue. Therefore, in view of changed circumstances, as the maximum period of provisional attachment is over, the provisional attachment order against the writ petitioner does not survive and cease to exist in the eyes of law.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ N.Gandhi/Anu /375

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.