M/S Spb Tradelink Private Limited vs. Union Of Idnia And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, M/s SPB Tradelink Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order dated April 2, 2024, issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (Respondent No. 3). The Petitioner's primary contention was that a provisional attachment order under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, cannot exceed one year. The Court issued notice, and the Respondent's counsel conceded that the one-year period stipulated by Rule 83(2) had expired, rendering the attachment unsustainable.
Held
The Court held that a provisional attachment order under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year, as stipulated by Rule 83(2). The Court noted that the impugned attachment order dated April 2, 2024, had already lapsed as the one-year period had expired. Consequently, the attachment was no longer operational and was liable to be quashed. The Court directed ICICI Bank to de-freeze the Petitioner's bank account within two working days of receiving the order. The petition was disposed of on these terms.
Key Issues
1. Whether a provisional attachment order under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, is sustainable beyond a period of one year? The Petitioner argued that Section 83(2) read with Rule 83(2) mandates that a provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after one year. Therefore, the impugned order, having exceeded this period, is no longer valid. The Respondent, through its counsel, admitted that the one-year period had lapsed and conceded that the attachment was not sustainable.
Sections Cited
Section 83, Rule 83
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the provisional attachment order dated 2nd April, 2024 passed by the Respondent No. 3-Directorate General of GST Intelligence.
The primary submission made by the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner is that a provisional attachment order under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), cannot last for more than a period of one year.
Notice was issued in this matter on 15th July, 2025 when the counsel for the Respondent was asked to seek instructions.
Today ld. Counsel for the Respondent fairly admits that the period of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 12:58:46
one year in terms of Rule 83 (2) has already lapsed and thus the attachment made thereunder is not sustainable.
A perusal of Rule 83 (2) of the Act shows that every provisional attachment shall seize to have effect after the expiry of one year. In view thereof, and considering the fact that the impugned attachment order dated 2nd April, 2024 has already lapsed, the attachment is no longer operational and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the ICICI bank is directed to de-freeze the Petitioner’s Bank account bearing A/c No: 135605001407 within two working days after receipt of this order.
The petition is disposed of in these terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 29, 2025/kp/Ar. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/08/2025 at 12:58:46
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.