Case Name – Bharat Parihar Vs. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Writ Petition No.3742 Of 2023
Date: 30/06/2023
CORAM – Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Jitendra Jain
INTRODUCTION
The Bombay high court stated that the communication sent on April 21, 2022, which provisionally attached the petitioner’s bank account, is illegal and invalid according to Section 83(2) of the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act. They also deemed the extension of the provisional attachment, communicated on April 19, 2023, to be illegal.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, who is the taxpayer, challenged the provisional attachment of their bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act in a communication dated April 19, 2023. This attachment had been initially made on April 21, 2022. The petitioner filed the complaint after their objections to the provisional attachment were dismissed by the respondents in accordance with Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules.
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The petitioner argued that Section 83(2) specifies that the provisional attachment, as per Section 83(1), ceases to be effective after one year from the date of the initial order. In this case, the provisional attachment order was issued on April 21, 2022, and one year had passed on April 21, 2023.
The respondents claimed that the letter sent was merely a communication to the bankers, with a copy provided to the petitioner. They stated that a fresh order had been issued, which was recorded on the order sheet and included as an annexure to their response. According to the respondents, since a new provisional attachment order had been issued for the petitioner’s bank account, the communication dated April 19, 2023, confirming the attachment was valid.
However, the court found no evidence of a fresh order being issued by the respondents to attach the bank account on April 19, 2023. The court held that the notations made in the officer’s file cannot be considered an order without a formal order being passed, as required by the law, and most importantly, without the order being communicated to the affected individual whose bank account is being attached.
The court also noted that the department failed to demonstrate that the order had been passed and served to the petitioner, especially prior to the expiration of the provisional attachment order as stipulated in Section 83(2) and the communication dated April 19, 2023.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- ATHARVA AGGARWAL
