Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Amit Mahajan, JJ.
Parvinder Gulati – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9405 of 2023
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Provisional Attachment - Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - The court held that since the last provisional order passed by the Commissionerate at Belapur was no longer operative, the petition was rendered academic. The court directed the concerned bank not to interdict the operation of the petitioner's bank account based on the provisional attachment orders mentioned in the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition to challenge the orders attaching the petitioner's bank accounts. The last provisional order passed by the Commissionerate at Belapur was no longer operative.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition by directing the concerned bank not to interdict the operation of the petitioner's bank account based on the provisional attachment orders mentioned in the petition. The petitioner was given the liberty to apply if any further order provisionally attaching the petitioner's assets is passed.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the provisional attachment orders passed by the Commissionerate at Belapur and the impact of the last operative order on the petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that since the last provisional order was no longer operative, the petition was rendered academic. The court directed the concerned bank not to interdict the operation of the petitioner's bank account based on the provisional attachment orders mentioned in the petition.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction to the concerned bank not to interdict the operation of the petitioner's bank account based on the provisional attachment orders mentioned in the petition. The petitioner was given the liberty to apply if any further order provisionally attaching the petitioner's assets is passed.
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning orders dated 13.08.2019, 21.07.2020 & 04.08.2021 whereby the petitioner's bank accounts were attached. It is pointed out that in addition to the orders mentioned in the present petition, Commissioner of CGST, Belapur has passed another order dated 05.08.2022 which in effect further extended the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts. One year has passed since the said order was issued. Thus, in terms of Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter `the CGST Act'), the said order is no longer operative.
2. Mr. Hossain learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the Commissionerate at Belapur has not passed any further orders after 05.08.2022.
3. A tabular statement indicating that the orders of provisional attachment passed in respect of the petitioner's bank accounts are set out below:
| S. NO. | Bank Account Details | 1ST Provisional Attachment Order Date: 13.08.2019 | 2nd Provisional Attachment Order Date: 21.07.2019 | 3rd Provisional Attachment Order Date: 04.08.2021 | 4th Provisional Attachment Order Date: 05.08.2022 |
| 1. | IndusInd Bank Ltd. Indirapuram, Ghaziabad Account No.159910663973 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel12-86/Gr.A/Gulati/2019-20/1739 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel/Gr.E/12-27/Ritesh Creations/Enq/19-20/190 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel/Gr.E/12-27/Ritesh Creations/Enq/19-20/3867 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel/Gr.E/12-27/Ritesh Creations/Enq/19-20/2459 |
| 2. | HDFC Bank Ltd. Patparganj Industrial Area Account No.50100044424997 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel12-86/Gr.A/Gulati/2019-20/1738 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel/Gr.E/12-27/Ritesh Creations/Enq/19-20/191 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel/Gr.E/12-27/Ritesh Creations/Enq/19-20/3868 | Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel/Gr.E/12-27/Ritesh Creations/Enq/19-20/2458 |
4. Since the order dated 05.08.2022 - which was the last provisional order passed by the Commissionerate at Belapur - is no longer operative, the present petition has been rendered academic.
5. In the given circumstances, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the concerned bank (respondent no.3) that it shall not interdict the operation of the petitioner's bank account on account of any of the orders of the provisional attachment that are mentioned above.
6. The petition is disposed of the in the aforesaid directions.
7. It is clarified that if any further order provisionally attaching the petitioner's assets is passed, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply.
8. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.
The operativeness of the last provisional order and its impact on rendering the petition academic.
The inoperativeness of the last provisional order under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act rendered the petition academic, and the court directed the concerned bank not to interdict the operation of the p....
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 legal principle established is that a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST act ceases to have effect after one year from the date of the order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisional attachment order of a bank account ceases to have effect after one year from the date of issuance under Section 83 of the CGST....
Provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST/KGST Act automatically cease to have effect after one year, with no scope for renewal or reissuance by tax authorities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
