M/S Jackpot Exim Private Limited Through Its Proprietor Sri. Bhupendra Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Principal Secretary Ministry Of Finance And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the provisional attachment order dated 06.09.2019, issued under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has ceased to have effect by operation of law. This is based on the clear mandate of Section 83(2) of the Act, which states that every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order. The Court observed that the attachment order, having been issued on 06.09.2019, had outlived its statutory life after one year. The Court also expressed strong disapproval of the respondent department's failure to provide necessary instructions, noting that such conduct delays adjudication and harasses assessees, adversely impacting the business environment. The competent authority was directed to consider the petitioner's grievances and pass a fresh order in light of Section 83(2) and applicable law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jackpot Exim Private Limited, is aggrieved by a provisional attachment order dated 06.09.2019 issued under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The attachment was placed on the petitioner's business bank account. The dispute arose from a spot inspection concerning a change in the petitioner's place of business registration. Subsequently, the petitioner's registration was revoked, but an order dated 24.12.2019 from the Office of the Principal Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Meerut, revoked this cancellation. Despite the revocation, the bank account remained attached, preventing the petitioner from operating it. There appears to be a dispute regarding GST payment for the period prior to 06.09.2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated 06.09.2019 under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, remains valid after the expiry of one year from its date of issue, as stipulated in Section 83(2) of the Act? The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order has automatically ceased to have effect due to the one-year limitation period prescribed by Section 83(2) of the Act. The petitioner contended that since the order has expired by operation of law, the bank account should be released. The respondent department, represented by the Union of India and others, was unable to provide instructions to the Court for a period of two months, and their request for further time was denied. The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent regarding the validity of the attachment order or Section 83(2).