Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma vs. The Union Of INDIA Through Revenue Secretary
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order issued by the Revenue authorities under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The attachment pertained to the Petitioner's bank account. The impugned order was dated April 5, 2024. The Petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order had ceased to have effect as a period of one year had elapsed since its issuance. Furthermore, the Petitioner pointed out that adjudication proceedings had concluded, and an Order-In-Original dated January 28, 2025, had been passed, against which the Petitioner had filed an appeal after making the required pre-deposit. The Petitioner contended that these subsequent developments provided additional grounds to interfere with the provisional attachment order.
Held
The Court held that the provisional attachment order dated April 5, 2024, had ceased to have effect by operation of law, specifically Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, as one year had elapsed since its issuance. The Court found that the attachment of the Petitioner's bank account could not continue based on this expired order. Even without considering the subsequent developments of the completed adjudication and the pending appeal, the Court concluded that the impugned order had lost its effectiveness. Consequently, the Court formally quashed and set aside the provisional attachment order. The Court clarified that the petition was limited to the impugned order of April 5, 2024, and did not cover any other attachment orders. The Respondents were directed to inform HDFC Bank within one week, and the bank was ordered to release/de-freeze the Petitioner's bank account upon production of an authenticated copy of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order issued under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, has ceased to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order made under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order, issued on April 5, 2024, had automatically lapsed on April 4, 2025, as it had been in effect for one year. The Petitioner also contended that the subsequent completion of adjudication proceedings and the filing of an appeal against the Order-In-Original provided further justification for quashing the provisional attachment order. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Respondents (Revenue).
Sections Cited
Section 83(2), Section 83(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per M. S. Sonak, J.):
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this Petition is to the order of provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s Bank account by invoking Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. 30th June 2025 SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2025.07.04 11:54:36 +0530
19-ASWP-8539-2025.DOCX
A period of one year has already elapsed since the issuance of the impugned provisional attachment order in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The provisional attachment order ceased to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of an order made under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the impugned order dated 5th April 2024 has ceased to have effect post 4th April 2025. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner points out that the impugned provisional attachment order made pending adjudication proceedings. By an Order-In-Original dated 28th January 2025 has also been made upon the conclusion of the adjudication proceedings. He points out that the Petitioner has appealed this order by making a pre-deposit. He submits that this is an additional ground to interfere with the impugned provisional attachment order.
Even if we take no cognizance of the subsequent development of completion of adjudication proceedings and the pendency of an Appeal, still, having regard to the provisions of Section 83(2), the impugned order has ceased to be effective. Based upon this order, therefore, the attachment of Petitioner’s Bank account having No. 50200033711279 in the HDFC Bank cannot operate. The impugned provisional attachment order dated April 5, 2024, is therefore formally quashed and set aside. 30th June 2025
19-ASWP-8539-2025.DOCX
However, we clarify that this Petition is restricted only to the impugned provisional attachment order dated 5th April 2024 and does not concern any other orders, if passed, concerning attachment or provisional attachment.
The Respondents must write to the HDFC Bank within one week from today regarding this order. In any event, within a week from today, upon the production of an authenticated copy of this order, the HDFC Bank must release /de-freeze the Petitioner’s Bank account, now that the impugned provisional attachment order dated 5th April 2024 is quashed and set aside.
The Rule is made absolute. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
All concerned are to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J) { 30th June 2025
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.