M/S. Induslnd Bank Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Facts

M/s. Induslnd Bank Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a Provisional Attachment Order dated May 26, 2025, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Telangana State (Respondent No. 1). The order was passed under Section 83 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, provisionally attaching property belonging to the petitioner to protect government revenue. The petitioner sought to declare this order illegal, arbitrary, and violative of constitutional provisions and specific acts, praying for it to be declared null and void. The petition also sought interim suspension of the attachment order. The respondents include the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and M/s. Bigleap Technologies and Solutions Private Limited along with its directors and associates.

Held

The Court held that the Provisional Attachment Order dated May 26, 2025, issued under Section 83 of the Telangana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, had ceased to have effect. A plain reading of Section 83(2) of the TGST Act indicates that every such provisional attachment remains in force for a period of one year from the date of the order. In this case, the order, dated May 26, 2025, would have expired on May 25, 2026. Since the order had worked itself out by operation of law and lost its efficacy, force, and legal effect, the Court found no justification to keep the writ petition pending for adjudication on its validity. The Court noted that the petitioner Bank was at liberty to avail other legal remedies if the need arose. The writ petition was disposed of on this ground.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Provisional Attachment Order dated May 26, 2025, issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 83 of the TGST Act, 2017, has ceased to have effect by operation of law. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Provisional Attachment Order was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as well as Section 26E of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and Section 31B of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. They sought to have the order declared null and void. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue (Respondent No. 1) regarding the validity of the order. However, the Revenue was represented by a Special Government Pleader for State Taxes.