Ms Shri Krishna Steel Re Rolling Mill vs. State Of Punjab And Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Shri Krishna Steel Re Rolling Mill, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 12.11.2024, which ordered the attachment of the petitioner's bank account. The attachment was made under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that such an attachment cannot continue beyond a period of one year. The revenue, represented by the State of Punjab and others, did not dispute the fact that the bank account was provisionally attached on 12.11.2024 and argued that it could not be attached beyond 12.11.2025. The petitioner's counsel relied on the settled position of law regarding the provisional attachment of bank accounts.
Held
The Court held that the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account, which was ordered on 12.11.2024, cannot continue beyond a period of one year. This finding is based on the settled position of law regarding the duration of provisional attachments under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court noted that the revenue's counsel fairly submitted that necessary directions shall be passed to the respondent-bank, within ten days from the date of the order, for the release of the petitioner's provisionally attached bank account. Consequently, the Court found the present petition to be rendered infructuous in light of the submissions made by the revenue.
Key Issues
1. Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account, ordered on 12.11.2024, is valid beyond a period of one year, in light of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment of their bank account, made on 12.11.2024, is invalid if it continues beyond one year, citing the settled position of law. They relied on the principle that such attachments are time-bound. Revenue's arguments: The respondent-revenue acknowledged that the bank account was provisionally attached on 12.11.2024 and conceded that the attachment cannot continue beyond 12.11.2025. They did not dispute the petitioner's assertion regarding the one-year limit.
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE M/S SHRI KRIS STATE OF PUN CORAM : H
H Present : M
M
DEEPAK SIB
Th dated 12.11.202 ordered attachm attachment in v 2017, cannot co
L the settled po provisionally at 3. In direction shall b order release o order dated 12.1
In submits that the 5. D
2026 Prince Whether speaking/
Sr. No.339
E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH
CWP-8 Date of SHNA STEEL RE ROLLING MILL Versus NJAB AND OTHERS
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPA HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA Mr. V.B. Gupta, Advocate for the Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. A.G., P *** BAL, J. (Oral)
hrough this petition, the petitione 24 (Annexure P-1), through whi ment of the petitioner’s bank acc view of Section 83 of the Central ontinue beyond a period of one year earned counsel for the respondent sition of law that the petitione ttached on 12.11.2024, cannot be at n the light of the above, Mr. Kapo be passed to the respondent-Bank, of the petitioner’s provisionally a 11.2024 (Annexure P-1). n the light of the afore statement, le e present petition is rendered infruc Disposed of.
(DEEPA
J (LAPIT
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.