9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 881 - HC - GSTAttachment of Bank Account of petitioner - Case of petitioner is that the petitioner has lost its force since the maximum period is one year of an order of attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - This writ petition is disposed of by holding that the attachment order dated 25th October, 2019 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition has lost its force and action of the respondent bank in not allowing the petitioner to operate his bank account in question on the basis of the aforesaid attachment order is not legally justified and the bank shall not act any further on the basis of the aforesaid impugned attachment order dated 25th October, 2019. Writ petition is disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to bank's action based on attachment order under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the respondent bank's decision to not allow them to operate their account due to an attachment order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the attachment order had expired as its maximum duration is one year. The respondent, representing the CGST authority, confirmed that they had not extended the attachment order beyond the initial period. The High Court considered the submissions from both parties and ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the attachment order issued on 25th October, 2019, had lost its legal effect as it exceeded the maximum permissible duration under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the bank's decision to restrict the petitioner from operating their account based on the expired attachment order was deemed unjustified. The Court directed the bank not to take any further action based on the said attachment order. The writ petition, numbered WPA No.10012 of 2021, was disposed of with the aforementioned observations. Notably, the Court clarified that since the petition was resolved without requiring affidavits, the allegations presented by the petitioner were considered as denied by the respondents.
|
