The order of provisional attachment was made in view of contemplation of proceedings under Section 73, which is not at all a valid order. The petitioner is justified in its claim that such order of provisional attachment ought to be set aside.
Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts –-- The petitioner challenged the attachment order dated 01.12.2020issued under section 83 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the conditions precedent for invoking jurisdiction under section 83 of the Act, 2017 are absent in the present case rendering exercise of power invalid. The respondent’s counsel submitted that petitioner had obtained refund of unutilized input tax credit under section 54 of the Act fraudulently as a result of which an amount of Rs. 5.20 crores was credited in the bank account of the petitioner maintained with respondent No.3. The court observed that the petitioner carried the order in an appeal under Section 107. The proceedings having been initiated against the petitioner under Section 73 and such proceedings having been terminated by a final order, terminating the life of the order of provisional attachment. The court further observed that the order of provisional attachment was made not during pendency of any proceedings under Sections 62 or 63 or 64 or 67 or 73 or 74 but was made in view of contemplation of proceedings under Section 73 thereof. From its inception, i.e., December 1, 2020, the order of provisional attachment was not at all a valid order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court declared the order dated December 1, 2020 as void ab initio.
The order of provisional attachment was made in view of contemplation of proceedings under Section 73, which is not at all a valid order. The petitioner is justified in its claim that such order of provisional attachment ought to be set aside.
Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts –-- The petitioner challenged the attachment order dated 01.12.2020issued under section 83 of the Act. The petitioner contended that the conditions precedent for invoking jurisdiction under section 83 of the Act, 2017 are absent in the present case rendering exercise of power invalid. The respondent’s counsel submitted that petitioner had obtained refund of unutilized input tax credit under section 54 of the Act fraudulently as a result of which an amount of Rs. 5.20 crores was credited in the bank account of the petitioner maintained with respondent No.3. The court observed that the petitioner carried the order in an appeal under Section 107. The proceedings having been initiated against the petitioner under Section 73 and such proceedings having been terminated by a final order, terminating the life of the order of provisional attachment. The court further observed that the order of provisional attachment was made not during pendency of any proceedings under Sections 62 or 63 or 64 or 67 or 73 or 74 but was made in view of contemplation of proceedings under Section 73 thereof. From its inception, i.e., December 1, 2020, the order of provisional attachment was not at all a valid order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court declared the order dated December 1, 2020 as void ab initio.