M/S P.K. Overseas vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s P.K. Overseas, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging a provisional attachment of its bank account. The attachment was made under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, following a search and seizure operation under Section 67 of the same Act. A demand of Rs. 1,04,67,556/- had been raised against the petitioner, which had crystallized. The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment should lapse as one year had elapsed since its initiation, as stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents, Union of India and others, were represented by 'None'. The petitioner's counsel did not press the claim for refund.
Held
The Court allowed the petition to the extent that the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account would lapse in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, as one year had expired from the date of the order. The Court reasoned that Section 83(2) explicitly states that such attachments cease to have effect after one year. The Court clarified that this lapse of attachment would not erode the petitioner's liability for the demand amount of Rs. 1,04,67,556/-. The respondents were held to be free to take appropriate recovery actions in accordance with law. The concerned bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner's account. The petitioner's claim for refund was not pressed and thus not decided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account, made under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, has ceased to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order, as provided under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, a period of one year has elapsed since the provisional attachment order was passed, and therefore, the attachment automatically lapses. The petitioner sought disposal of the writ petition on this ground. Respondents' contention: No arguments were recorded for the respondents as 'None' appeared for them.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(1), Section 83(2), Section 67
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
CWP-10088-2023 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:051873-DB (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).”
We find that there is a demand as against the petitioner for Rs.1,04,67,556/-. The same is after search and seizure conducted under Section 67 of the CGST Act, 2017. The payment for the demand has finally crystallized and the liability of the petitioner cannot be said to have been eroded.
So far as the provisional attachment of the account is concerned, the same would however lapse in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner’s claim for refund is not pressed by the counsel.
Accordingly, we allow this petition to the aforesaid extent in terms of 83(2) of the Act.
However, it would in no manner be understood to erode the liability of the petitioner for payment of demand amount under the CGST Act, 2017 and the respondents would be always free to take appropriate action for the purpose of recovery, in accordance with law.
The concerned bank shall accordingly defreeze the account of the petitioner.
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE April 18, 2024 Mohit goyal
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No 2. Whether reportable?
Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2024.04.19 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment Punjab & Haryana High Court, CHD
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.