Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Akil Kureshi CJ and Sudesh Bansal J ranted interim relief and stayed the provisional attachment order.
The facts of the case is such that the petitioner’s bank account was placed under provisional attachment by an order dated 03-12-2020 in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short ‘CGST Act’) by the respondents. Hence petition was filed seeking interim relief of stay of such order.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of CGST Act such provisional attachment cannot survive beyond a period of one year.
The Court observed that Section 83 of the CGST Act pertains to provisional attachment to protect the revenue in certain cases. In sub-section (1) of Section 83 the commissioner is empowered to order provisional attachment of the property of the assessee including bank account where proceedings under Chapters XII, XIV and XV are pending and the commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of government revenue it is necessary so to do. Sub-section (2) of Section 83 provides that every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of period of one year from the date of order made under sub-section (1).
The Court further observed that CBIC’s circular dated 23-02-2021 has also clarified that every provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after expiry of period of one year from the date of attachment order.
The Court observed and held the “order of attachment was passed more than a year back and would therefore be ceased to be effective upon completion of period of one year. By way of interim relief therefore it is provided that the provisional attachment order stands stayed.”
[BR Construction Company v. Additional Director, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2086/2021, decided on 22-02-2022]
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Jatin Harjai and Mr Mohit Kumar Soni
For Respondent(s): Ms. Mahi Yadav