Continuation of provisional attachment even after expiry of the mandatory period of one year prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 83 is wholly without jurisdiction.
Section 83 of the CGST Act — Attachment of Bank Account – The petitioner aggrieved by the continuation of provisional attachment attaching the petitioner’s company’s current bank account, even after expiry of the mandatory period of one year prescribed under Sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that continuation of such attachment is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the decision dated 27.07.2020 of the Karnataka High Court in M/s A.P. Steels and Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. Additional Director General, DGCI, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru. The court observed that the issue relates to a provisional attachment order dt.07.06.2019 and its continuing existence after 06.06.2020, contrary to sub-Section (2) of Section 83 of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ Petition and held that the impugned provisional attachment order dt.07.06.2019 cannot continue after 06.06.2020 in view of sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of Act, and any such continuation would be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and would be wholly without jurisdiction.
Continuation of provisional attachment even after expiry of the mandatory period of one year prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 83 is wholly without jurisdiction.
Section 83 of the CGST Act — Attachment of Bank Account – The petitioner aggrieved by the continuation of provisional attachment attaching the petitioner’s company’s current bank account, even after expiry of the mandatory period of one year prescribed under Sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that continuation of such attachment is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. He relied upon the decision dated 27.07.2020 of the Karnataka High Court in M/s A.P. Steels and Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. Additional Director General, DGCI, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru. The court observed that the issue relates to a provisional attachment order dt.07.06.2019 and its continuing existence after 06.06.2020, contrary to sub-Section (2) of Section 83 of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ Petition and held that the impugned provisional attachment order dt.07.06.2019 cannot continue after 06.06.2020 in view of sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of Act, and any such continuation would be violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300A of the Constitution of India and would be wholly without jurisdiction.