M/S. Galaxy International vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s. Galaxy International, challenged a provisional attachment order dated May 7, 2024, issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, attaching their bank account. The attachment was made by the Respondent authorities. The Petitioner argued that the attachment order had expired by operation of law. The Respondent stated that a fresh provisional attachment order was passed on May 1, 2025, but could not be served on the Petitioner as they were allegedly non-existent. The Petitioner disputed this, stating a copy of the fresh order was handed over in court.
Held
The Court held that the provisional attachment order dated May 7, 2024, had ceased to have effect by operation of law, as the one-year period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the CGST Act expired on May 7, 2025. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the said attachment order. Regarding the fresh provisional attachment order dated May 1, 2025, the Court noted the Respondent's submission that it was passed but could not be served due to the Petitioner's alleged non-existence, which the Petitioner disputed. The Petitioner's counsel stated they would take appropriate measures concerning the fresh notice. The Court disposed of the petition in light of the quashing of the original attachment order, without making any specific finding on the validity or service of the fresh order, leaving it to the Petitioner to address it.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated May 7, 2024, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, has ceased to have effect by operation of law. The Petitioner contended that Section 83(2) of the CGST Act mandates that a provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after one year from its date, and in this case, the period expired on May 7, 2025. The Respondent did not present any argument on this specific issue. 2. Whether the fresh provisional attachment order dated May 1, 2025, is validly served. The Petitioner disputed the Respondent's claim of non-existence and stated that a copy of the fresh order was provided in court, and they would take appropriate legal measures regarding it. The Respondent's counsel submitted that they were unable to serve the Petitioner as they were non-existing.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Section 83(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
13-ASWP-18856-2024.DOC Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURI ICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 18856 OF 2024 M/s. Galaxy International …Petitioner Versus Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs & Ors …Respondents Mr Prakash Shah, Senior Advocate, with Brijesh Pathak & Dulraj Jain, for the Petitioner. Mr Jitendra B Mishra, with Sangeeta Yadav & Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondents. CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 24th June 2025. PC:-
This Petition challenges provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act of Bank Account No.200001460860 with the Equitas Small Finance Bank Ltd. The said provisional attachment order is dated 7th May 2024. 2. Section 83(2) provides that every provisional attachment shall cease to have the effect after the expiry of period of one year from the date of provisional attachment order. In this case, the said period of one year expired on 7th 24th June 2025 SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2025.06.25 10:59:35 +0530
13-ASWP-18856-2024.DOC May 2025. Therefore, by operation of law, the provisional attachment order challenged in the present Petition ceases to exist.
In view thereof, the Petition is allowed by quashing the provisional attachment order dated 7th May 2024. 4. Mr Mishra, learned counsel for the Respondent states that they have passed a fresh provisional attachment order on 1st May 2025. However, they could not serve the Petitioner since Mr Mishra submits that they are non-existing. Mr Shah disputes the same. Mr Shah submits that the fresh attachment order dated 1st May 2025 has not been served but a copy of the same has been handed over in the Court by Ms Yadav to Mr Pathak. Mr Shah submits that he would take appropriate measures in accordance with law insofar as the fresh notice is concerned.
The Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any order as to costs. (Jitendra Jain, J) (M. S. Sonak, J) { 24th 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.