Oak Shipping Services PVT LTD vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Oak Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., challenged two provisional attachment orders dated July 14, 2020, and August 5, 2022, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, by the Bombay Office of the revenue authorities. These orders led to the freezing of the Petitioner's bank account with the third Respondent (a bank). The Petitioner contended that the attachments had ceased to have effect as they were not renewed within the one-year period stipulated by Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. The Respondents acknowledged that the matter had been referred to the Delhi Office and sought time to obtain instructions, but the Court noted that the challenge was specifically against the orders issued by the Bombay Office.
Held
The Court held that in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, every provisional attachment ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1) of Section 83. Since the one-year period for the impugned provisional attachment orders dated 14 July 2020 and 5 August 2022 had expired, they could no longer remain in operation. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside these impugned orders. The Court directed the Respondents to inform the third Respondent-Bank about this order within a week. If this was not done, the Petitioner was permitted to file an authenticated copy of the order with the bank, which was then directed to immediately defreeze the Petitioner's bank account. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment orders dated 14 July 2020 and 5 August 2022, issued under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, continue to have legal effect after the expiry of one year from their respective dates of issue, as stipulated by Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, mandates that every provisional attachment made under Section 83 shall cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order. Since the one-year period for both impugned orders had long expired, they could no longer operate. Respondents' Argument: The Respondents submitted that the Bombay Office, which issued the orders, had referred the matter to the Delhi Office. They sought time to ascertain the status of any orders issued by the Delhi Office, but the Court clarified that the challenge was limited to the orders issued by the Bombay Office.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(1), Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Sayyed 907-WP.8123.2025.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8123 OF 2025 WRIT PETITION NO.8123 OF 2025 Oak Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. Oak Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. ... ...Petitioner Petitioner Versus Versus The Union of India & Ors. The Union of India & Ors. ... ...Respondents Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Ansh Agal i/b. Jain Law Partners LLP for the Petitioner. Mr. Ansh Agal i/b. Jain Law Partners LLP for the Petitioner. Ms. Neeta Masurkar a/w Ms. Rashmi Tiwari & Ms. Sumar Kumar Das Ms. Neeta Masurkar a/w Ms. Rashmi Tiwari & Ms. Sumar Kumar Das for the Respondents. for the Respondents. _____________________________________________________ CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 24 June 2025 PC.:- (Per M. S. Sonak, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner challenges provisional attachment orders dated The Petitioner challenges provisional attachment orders dated 14 July 2020 and 5 August 2022 issued under Section 83 of the Central 14 July 2020 and 5 August 2022 issued under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (CGST Act) defreezing the Petitioner's Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (CGST Act) defreezing the Petitioner's Bank Account bearing No.09258970000016 maintained with third Bank Account bearing No.09258970000016 maintained with third Respondent. Respondent.
Mr. Agal, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to Section Mr. Agal, learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and submits that every provisional 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 and submits that every provisional attachment made under Section 83 shall cease to have the effect after attachment made under Section 83 shall cease to have the effect after expiry period of one year from the date of the order made under sub- expiry period of one year from the date of the order made under sub- section (1). He submits that this one year has long expired and, section (1). He submits that this one year has long expired and, therefore, the impugned provisional attachment orders cannot operate therefore, the impugned provisional attachment orders cannot operate any longer. any longer.
Ms. Masurkar, learned counsel for the Respondents submits Ms. Masurkar, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Bombay Office, which had issued the provisional attachment that the Bombay Office, which had issued the provisional attachment orders has now referred the matter to the Delhi Office. She submits that orders has now referred the matter to the Delhi Office. She submits that 2025:BHC-AS:25228-DB
Sayyed 907-WP.8123.2025.docx she is unaware of whether Delhi Office has issued any provisional she is unaware of whether Delhi Office has issued any provisional attachment orders and the status of such orders, if any. Accordingly, she attachment orders and the status of such orders, if any. Accordingly, she seeks some time to obtain instructions from the Delhi Office. seeks some time to obtain instructions from the Delhi Office.
This matter was adjourned from yesterday to today at the This matter was adjourned from yesterday to today at the request made on behalf of Respondents. In any event, we need not be request made on behalf of Respondents. In any event, we need not be concerned with whether the Delhi Office has issued any provisional concerned with whether the Delhi Office has issued any provisional attachment orders or attachment orders since, the same have not been attachment orders or attachment orders since, the same have not been challenged by the Petitioner before us. The challenge before us is challenged by the Petitioner before us. The challenge before us is restricted to the provisional attachment orders dated 14 July 2020 and restricted to the provisional attachment orders dated 14 July 2020 and 5 August 2022 issued under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the 5 August 2022 issued under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 by the Bombay Office. Bombay Office.
In terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, every such In terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a 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 period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1) of Section 83. Since this period of one year has already expired, the (1) of Section 83. Since this period of one year has already expired, the impugned provisional attachment orders cannot continue to operate. impugned provisional attachment orders cannot continue to operate. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned provisional Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned provisional attachment orders dated 14 July 2020 and 5 August 2022. attachment orders dated 14 July 2020 and 5 August 2022. 7. Unless, any other attachment orders have been issued, the Unless, any other attachment orders have been issued, the Respondents, within a week from today must write to third Respondent- Respondents, within a week from today must write to third Respondent- Bank informing them about this order. If this is not done within a week, Bank informing them about this order. If this is not done within a week, the Petitioner to file an authenticated copy of this order with third the Petitioner to file an authenticated copy of this order with third Respondent and the third Respondent, consistent with this order must Respondent and the third Respondent, consistent with this order must defreeze the Petitioner's Bank Account bearing No.09258970000016 defreeze the Petitioner's Bank Account bearing No.09258970000016 immediately. immediately.
This Petition is disposed of in above terms without any cost This Petition is disposed of in above terms without any cost order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. order. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (Jitendra Jain, J.) (M. S. Sonak, J.) Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 25/06/2025 19:10:27
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.