Ankur Garg vs. Principal Commissioner And Ors
Held
The Court held that the provisional attachment of the petitioner's goods, securities, and accounts had come to an end due to the expiry of the period mandated under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents, through their counsel, accepted this fact and confirmed that necessary instructions had been issued to the concerned offices, referencing a previous order in CWP-13453-2020. Consequently, the Court found no further impediment to disposing of the petition. The reasoning was straightforward: the statutory period for the attachment had lapsed, rendering the attachment itself defunct. The ratio decidendi is that a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, is time-bound, and its validity ceases upon the expiry of the stipulated period. The operative direction was to dispose of the petition as the main issue had become infructuous.
Facts
The petitioner, Ankur Garg, challenged the provisional attachment of his goods, securities, and accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The respondents are the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, and others. The petition was filed before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The core of the challenge was the provisional attachment itself. However, by the time the matter was heard, the period mandated for such attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, had expired. The respondents acknowledged this fact.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment of goods, securities, and accounts under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, remains valid after the expiry of the period mandated by the said section? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner's primary grievance was the provisional attachment. With the efflux of time and the statutory period for attachment having expired, the attachment is no longer in force. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, represented by Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, accepted the fact that the period mandated under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, had expired. They stated that necessary instructions had been issued to the relevant offices in light of a previous order in a similar case (M/s. RSL Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India).
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-1623-2021 Date of decision: 02.12.2021 Ankur Garg .... Petitioner Versus Principal Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Deepak Gupta, Mr. Mukul Singla and Mr. Kapish Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel, for respondent No.
Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Addl. A.G., Punjab. (Through Video Conferencing) ****
AJAY TEWARI, J (ORAL) By this petition, the petitioner had challenged the provisional attachment of goods, securities and accounts. However, with the efflux of time, the period mandated under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 has expired. In the circumstances, it is clear that the attachment has come to an end. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Senior Standing Counsel has accepted this fact and states that in view of the order dated 10.11.2021 passed in CWP-13453-2020 titled as “M/s. RSL Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, necessary instructions have already been issued to particular offices. DINESH KUMAR 2021.12.06 1
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 Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.