Ireo Residences Company Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others
Facts
The petitioner, IREO RESIDENCES COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED, filed a writ petition challenging the attachment of its bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The bank accounts were attached on April 9, 2020. During the pendency of the petition, one year elapsed since the attachment. The petitioner had also created a fixed deposit of Rs. 20 Crores pursuant to a court order dated January 7, 2021, after which the bank accounts were de-freezed. The petitioner indicated that proceedings related to a show cause notice concerning the service tax period from 2013 to 2017 were still pending adjudication.
Held
The Court held that the attachment of property under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is valid only for a period of one year. As the bank accounts were attached on April 9, 2020, and one year had elapsed during the pendency of the writ petition, the attachment was no longer in effect. The Court noted that the bank accounts had already been de-freezed pursuant to a previous order where the petitioner had created a fixed deposit of Rs. 20 Crores. Given that the attachment period had expired and the accounts were de-freezed, the Court found no further orders were required in relation to the attachment itself. The Court also explicitly stated that the issue of the vires of Section 83 of the Act shall remain open. The fixed deposit of Rs. 20 Crores made by the petitioner was directed to be released.
Key Issues
1. Whether the attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is valid beyond a period of one year, and if so, what is the consequence of the expiry of this period on the attachment. (This issue turns on the interpretation of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The attachment of property under Section 83 of the Act is valid only for a period of one year. Since one year has elapsed since the attachment on April 9, 2020, the attachment is no longer valid. Respondents' contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the respondents regarding the validity of the attachment beyond one year. However, the court's subsequent direction to release the fixed deposit implies an acceptance of the petitioner's argument regarding the time limit.
Sections Cited
Section 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 232 CWP-17880-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 16.02.2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate and Mr. Gajendra Maheshwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate with Ms. Shivani Sahni, Advocate and Mr. Tej Bahadur, Advocate for the respondents.
Ritu Bahri, J. (Oral)
Attachment of property under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act') is valid only for a period of one year. The bank accounts were attached on 09.04.2020 and during the pendency of this petition, one year has elapsed. Pursuant to order dated 07.01.2021, the petitioner had created a fixed deposit of Rs.20 Crores and in this backdrop the account had been de-freezed. Since the account has been de-freezed, counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice with respect to the service tax period of the year 2013 to 2017 has been pending adjudication. As far as presen
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.