M/S Stalwart Alloys INDIA PVT LTD vs. State Of Haryana And Others

CWP/29305/2025HC Punjab and HaryanaGSTCNR PHHC01157635202511 September 2026Bench: JUSTICE (TO BE NOMINATED),MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Held

The High Court, without commenting on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the competent authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Specifically, the Court ordered that the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts should not be continued beyond the maximum permissible period of one year. The reasoning is based on the statutory provision of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the acknowledgment by the revenue that revocation is necessary after the expiry of the period. The ratio decidendi is that statutory time limits for provisional attachments must be strictly adhered to, and authorities must act to revoke such attachments upon their expiry.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Stalwart Alloys India Pvt. Ltd., is challenging the continued attachment of its bank accounts, which was initially ordered on August 13, 2025. The petitioner contends that the attachment has subsisted beyond the maximum permissible period of one year as stipulated in Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. They rely on a Supreme Court judgment in support of their claim. The respondents-revenue acknowledged that upon the expiry of the one-year period, the competent authority is required to pass orders revoking the attachment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts, ordered on August 13, 2025, can lawfully continue beyond the maximum period of one year as prescribed under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the attachment of bank accounts cannot lawfully subsist beyond the maximum period of one year as prescribed in Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. They placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile Vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax; (2025) 177 taxmann.com 481 (SC). Revenue's contention: The respondents-revenue submitted that once the maximum period of one year has expired, the competent authority shall pass necessary orders revoking the attachment.

Sections Cited

Section 83

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-29305-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 11th September, 2026. M/S STALWART ALLOYS INDIA PVT. LTD.

.…...Petitioner(s) V/s STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR

Present Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Senior Advocate, with

Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sourabh Goel, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr. Prateek Singh, Advocate for Mr. Atul Goyal, Advocate, for respondent No.5-ICICI Bank.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)

1.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the continuance of the order dated 13.08.2025, vide which the petitioner’s Bank Accounts were attached, on the ground that upon expiry of the maximum permissible period of one year as prescribed in Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, such attachment cannot lawfully subsist. Reliance is placed upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile Vs. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax ; (2025) 177 taxmann.com 481 (SC).

2.

Learned counsel for the respondents-revenue submits th

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.

See plans and prices

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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.