2024 (6) TMI 1079 - HC - GST

Validity of attachment order passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - expiry of one year from the date the order is made - HELD THAT - It is conceded by learned counsel for the respondent that provisional attachment order was issued on 27.01.2022 and thereafter no fresh attachment order has been issued - It is held that the provisional attachment of the Bank Account No. 1711210216080640 with AU Small Finance Bank in the name of petitioner has ceased to have effect. The respondent bank is accordingly directed to forthwith permit operation of the said bank account and not impose any embargo on the operation of the same based solely on the provisional attachment order dated 27.01.2022 - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court addressed the challenge brought forth by the petitioner against the provisional attachment order passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contested the attachment of their bank account maintained with AU Small Finance Bank, arguing that the provisional attachment was directed on a specific date. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that as per Section 83(2) of the Act, the provisional attachment ceases to have effect after one year from the order's issuance. It was acknowledged by the respondent's counsel that no fresh attachment order had been issued subsequent to the initial order on 27.01.2022.

The Court, after considering the submissions, allowed the petition and ruled that the provisional attachment of the bank account with AU Small Finance Bank in the petitioner's name had ceased to have effect. Consequently, the respondent bank was directed to immediately allow the operation of the bank account and not impose any restrictions solely based on the provisional attachment order dated 27.01.2022. The judgment provided clarity on the legal implications of the provisional attachment under the mentioned Act and ensured that the petitioner's rights were upheld in this particular case.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions regarding provisional attachments under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal safeguards in place to protect individuals or entities affected by such provisional measures and highlights the significance of timely compliance with the relevant legal requirements to avoid unnecessary restrictions on financial operations.