2022 (8) TMI 369 - HC - GST

Defreezing of bank accounts and immovable property - Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - On a plain reading of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the attachment order cannot continue. The respondent is directed to lift the attachment - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Release of bank accounts and property, Quashing of provisional attachment orders, Compliance with Section 83 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.

Release of Bank Accounts and Property:
The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent to release, defreeze, or allow the operation of specific bank accounts and property. The High Court noted that the provisional attachment orders for the bank accounts and property were issued on 31.03.2021. The petitioner argued that as per Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the respondent can keep the attachment alive for a maximum of one year. The respondent agreed with this position. The matter was listed for further hearing to address this issue. The High Court directed the respondent to lift the attachment on a plain reading of Section 83, as no fresh attachment order had been passed. The respondent was instructed to convey this information to the concerned bank within three days. Consequently, the prayers related to the release of bank accounts and property were allowed, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

Quashing of Provisional Attachment Orders:
The petitioner also sought a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the provisional attachment orders dated 31.03.2021. However, during the proceedings, the petitioner expressed that they did not wish to press the prayer made in this regard. As a result, the High Court did not delve further into this issue as it was not pursued by the petitioner.

Compliance with Section 83 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017:
The central issue revolved around the compliance with Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which governs the timeframe for keeping attachments alive. The petitioner argued that the attachment orders exceeded the maximum allowable timeframe of one year. The respondent, through their counsel, acknowledged this position. The High Court, after considering the submissions, directed the respondent to lift the attachment as no fresh order had been issued. This decision was based on the interpretation of Section 83 and the absence of any extension of the attachment. The court emphasized compliance with the statutory provisions and ordered the respondent to inform the bank to release the attachments promptly.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment primarily focused on the release of bank accounts and property, the compliance with Section 83 of the CGST Act, and did not address the prayer related to quashing the provisional attachment orders, as it was withdrawn by the petitioner. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and ensuring prompt action in lifting attachments when required by law.