The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order, and the authorities have the jurisdiction to take action against any person, even if such a person is outside their jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Jain, J.) :

This petition challenges provisional attachment of bank account of the Petitioner with Yes Bank, Mumbai, under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 and further communication dated 19th April 2023, whereby the provisional attachment made on 21st April 2022 is retained under Section 83 of the CGST Act. The petition is filed after the objections of the Petitioner to provisional attachment were disposed of under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules by the Respondents.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

3. At the outset, the Respondents have raised a preliminary ground that the order disposing off objections under Rule 159(5) of CGST Rules attaching the bank account provisionally is an appealable order and, therefore, this Court should not entertain the petition. The Respondents have relied on Section 107 of the Act in support of the contention that the same is an appealable order. On the other hand, the Petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 771, wherein an identical submission was made before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in paragraphs 63 to 66 have held that order disposing the objections to provisional attachment of bank account is not an appealable order and the only remedy that is available is in the form of the invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Respondents cannot take a position contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court. Thus, the objection as to alternative remedy being no more res integra and concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra), the present writ petition needs to be entertained. We now propose to deal with the provisions relating to attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act.

4. Section 83 of the CGST Act reads as under:-

“(1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).”

5. Section 83(2) provides that provisional attachment made under sub-section (1) of Section 83 shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of “one year” from the date of the order made under sub-section (1). In the instant case, the provisional attachment order was made on 21st April 2022 and period of one year from the said date expired on 21st April 2023. Therefore, in our view, the provisional attachment order dated 21st April 2022 ceases to have effect by operation of law and cannot continue to operate after 21st April 2023. In the case of Guru Nanak Motor House vs. Union of India, 2021-TIOL-2017-HC-Mum-GST, this Court, after examining the provisions of Section 83, has taken a similar view wherein it was held that after the expiry of period of one year, the provisional attachment ceases to exist.

6. In so far as continuation of the provisional attachment by the Respondent’s letter dated 19th April 2023 is concerned, it is submitted by learned Counsel for the Respondents that the said letter is only a communication to the bankers with a copy marked to the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondents stated that a copy of fresh order is passed, which is noted on the order sheet a copy of which is annexed to the reply of the Respondents. It is the contention of the Respondents as a fresh order is passed provisionally attaching the Petitioner’s bank account, hence, the provisional attachment