Ms Laxmi Trading And Manufacturing Company vs. State Of Haryana And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Laxmi Trading and Manufacturing Company, filed a writ petition challenging the continued attachment of its bank account by the State of Haryana and other respondents. The attachment was initially made on June 5, 2025. The petitioner's sole contention was that the maximum period permissible for such attachment under Section 83(2) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had expired, rendering the continuation of the attachment illegal. The revenue, represented by the Additional Advocate General, Haryana, and Senior Panel Counsel for CBIC, did not dispute the petitioner's assertion regarding the expiry of the statutory period.

Held

The Court held that once the maximum period permissible for the attachment of a bank account under Section 83(2) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has expired, the continuation of such attachment cannot be sustained. The Court noted that the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's assertion that this statutory period had elapsed. Consequently, the Court found the continued attachment to be illegal. The ratio decidendi is that statutory time limits for provisional attachments must be strictly adhered to, and any continuation beyond such limits is void. The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to de-freeze the petitioner's overdraft account forthwith.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continued attachment of the petitioner's bank account beyond the maximum period stipulated in Section 83(2) of the Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the attachment of its bank account, made on June 5, 2025, had continued beyond the maximum permissible period as prescribed by Section 83(2) of the Act of 2017. Therefore, its continuation was in direct contravention of the statutory provision. Revenue's Argument: The revenue, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's claim that the maximum permissible period under Section 83(2) of the Act of 2017 had already expired. No arguments were recorded for the revenue disputing the petitioner's factual assertion or legal interpretation.