Provisional Attachment of Bank Account Ceases after 1 year Expiry: Delhi HC directs bank to operate account as attachment order no longer operative

Read More:

Clipped from:

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court considered the case while relying on section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017, and instructed the bank to handle the account normally since the attachment order was no longer in effect.

The bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that no orders are necessary to set aside the contested order because it is no longer in effect.

The petitioner has filed the petition contesting an order dated 13.01.2021 passed under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act), whereby the bank accounts of the petitioner were provisionally attached.

The Goods and Services Tax Authorities has provisionally attached 3 bank accounts of the petitioner namely, ICICI Bank, Oriental bank of commerce (Now merged with Punjab National Bank), Axis Bank.

The counsel for the respondent Ravi Prakash,  with others submitted  that the inquiries have revealed that the petitioner is a non-existing person and has not cooperated in the investigation.

The Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act empowers the authorities to attach the bank account provisionally for protecting the interest of the Government revenue. However it is also provided that the attachment will cease after the expiry of 1 year.

From the words of the Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, “Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).”

The High Court observed that it is clear from the plain language of Section 83(2) of the  Central Goods and Services Tax Act that the operation of an order provisionally attaching the bank account would cease to be operative after the expiry of the statutory period of one year.

It was further stated that “In so far as the petitioner’s prayer for permitting the petitioner to operate its bank account is concerned, clearly; the impugned order would not impede the petitioner, in any manner, in operating its bank account.”To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates



Counsel for Appellant:   Mr. Vineet Chadha, Mr. Saumitri Pradhan, Mr. Pavit Singh

Counsel for Respondent:   Mr. Ravi Prakash, CGSC with Ms. Seema Singh, Ms. Usha Jamnal

Be the First to get the Best

Join Our email list to get the latest Tax Updates , Special Offers, Events delivered right to your Inbox

Email Address *

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s