Form No.J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present :

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY WPA/1940/2025 M/S. AMIT METALIKS LIMITED VS THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GST &

CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA - II, COMM. AND ORS.

WITH WPA/3057/2025 ANKUR DEALCOM PRIVATE LIMITED VS COMMISSIONER CENTRAL GST AND CX, PATNA - II AND ORS.

For the petitioner In WPA/1940/2025 : Mr. Saurabh Bagaria Mr. Indranil Banerjee Mr. Subrata Mukherjee Ms. Samrita Das For the petitioner In WPA/3057/2025 : Mr. Akshat Agarwal (VC)

For the respondent CGST/

CX Patna : Mr. Shib Shankar Banerjee Mr. Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee Mr. Abhradip Maity For the UOI : Mr. Rajen Dutta Mr. Rajesh Kumar Shah For the State : Mr. Tanay Chakraborty Ms. Saptak Sanyal Heard on : 14.05.2025, 16.05.2025, 02.08.2025, 08.08.2025, 04.09.2025 & 06.02.2026.

Judgment on : 06.02.2026.

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J (Oral):

1. Heard in part.

In Re: WPA/1940/2025

2. Challenging an order of provisional attachment of property dated 3^rd January, 2025, issued under Section 83 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Patna-II, thereby attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, the instant writ petition has been filed. Initially, the petitioner had also sought for a declaration that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 83 of the said Act including the order dated 3rd January, 2025, issued in Form GST DRC – 22, is void as according to the petitioner, the Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-II did not have the jurisdiction and/or competence to pass the above order.

3. Although, this Court has heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties on merits of the case, however, in the interregnum since, a period of one year has already elapsed from the date of passing of the provisional order of attachment, the learned advocate for the petitioner contends that, it may not be relevant any longer to consider the other aspects as by passage of time and having regard to the provisions contained in Section 83(2) of the said Act, a provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of the period of one year from the date of the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 83 of the said Act.

4. Mr. Bagaria, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that though immediately upon expiry of the period of one year, the order of provisional attachment has lost its force and ceases to have an effect in terms of the statutory mandate and though, the petitioner had requested the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Patna-II as also its Banker vide letters dated 21^st January, 2026 and 27^th January, 2026 respectively, to defreeze the petitioner’s Bank account maintained with the State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Kolkata, the petitioner’s Banker has chosen not to act on the basis of the aforesaid requisition. He submits that there is also no response from the Office of the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Patna-II. Copies of the aforesaid communications dated 21st January, 2026 and 27th January, 2026, as placed before this Court, are taken on record. By placing before this Court a further communication dated 29^th January, 2026, he also submits that although, a further request was made to the petitioner’s Banker being State Bank of India, Overseas Branch, Kolkata, to defreeze the petitioner’s Bank account and to permit the petitioner to continue the banking operations, the same has also not been done. He submits that the issue as to whether provisional attachment order ceases to have effect having regard to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the said Act is no longer res integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the judgment delivered in the case of Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (2), Enforcement Division –5 report