Parag Garg vs. Principal Additional Director General, Directorate Of GST Intelligence

Facts

The petitioner, Parag Garg, challenged an order dated November 10, 2023, passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. This order had provisionally attached property. The respondent is the Principal Additional Director General, Directorate of GST Intelligence. The petitioner argued that the order was time-bound and had expired. The tax period is not specified. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history involves the petitioner filing a writ petition to challenge the attachment order.

Held

The Court held that the order dated November 10, 2023, purporting to be under Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, has clearly lost all efficacy. The Court reasoned that such an order can operate only for a period of 12 months as statutorily prescribed, and this period had admittedly come to an end. Consequently, the provisional attachment shall no longer burden the property in question. The respondent was directed to proceed in light of this declaration. The Court explicitly stated that this order is without prejudice to any other order which may have intervened or may have been passed by the respondents. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms.

Key Issues

1. Whether the provisional attachment order dated November 10, 2023, passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, has lost its efficacy due to the expiry of its statutory period. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that Section 83 of the CGST Act prescribes a maximum period of 12 months for a provisional attachment order to operate. Since the order in question was passed on November 10, 2023, its statutory period has expired, rendering it ineffective. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the expiry of the attachment order's efficacy.