Provisional attachment under delegated power upheld where assessment proceedings were pending and a fresh order after one year was permitted.

Section 45 permits provisional attachment by a delegated Assistant Commissioner where the Commissioner's power has been validly delegated and the statutory conditions are met. The one-year limit applies only to the life of a particular attachment order; it does not prevent a fresh order if assessment proceedings remain pending and revenue protection is still necessary. The attachment was also supported by pending assessment proceedings and material indicating outstanding tax dues, so the required statutory satisfaction was not shown to be arbitrary or unsupported. On that basis, the challenge to the provisional attachment failed and the petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the power to order provisional attachment under Section 45 could be exercised by the Assistant Commissioner by virtue of delegation; (ii) whether a fresh provisional attachment order could be passed after expiry of one year from the earlier order; and (iii) whether the provisional attachment was invalid for want of pending assessment proceedings or absence of the requisite satisfaction under Section 45.

Issue (i): whether the power to order provisional attachment under Section 45 could be exercised by the Assistant Commissioner by virtue of delegation.

Analysis: Section 45 vests the power in the Commissioner, but the record showed delegation of that power to the Assistant Commissioner under the relevant delegation order. Once delegated, the Assistant Commissioner could validly exercise the power in cases falling within the statutory conditions.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment orders did not suffer from lack of competence on the ground of authority.

Issue (ii): whether a fresh provisional attachment order could be passed after expiry of one year from the earlier order.

Analysis: Section 45(2) limits the life of each provisional attachment order to one year, but the text of the provision does not bar the passing of a fresh order if the statutory conditions continue to exist. The limitation is on the duration of a particular order, not on the power to re-exercise jurisdiction where assessment proceedings remain pending and protection of revenue is still necessary.

Conclusion: A fresh provisional attachment order after expiry of one year was permissible.

Issue (iii): whether the provisional attachment was invalid for want of pending assessment proceedings or absence of the requisite satisfaction under Section 45.

Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed that assessment proceedings were pending when the first attachment was made. The authority also had material indicating substantial outstanding tax dues and could form the opinion required by Section 45 for protecting revenue. In the absence of contrary material from the petitioner, the statutory satisfaction was not shown to be arbitrary or without basis.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was validly made under Section 45.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment failed, and the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 45 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, delegated authority may order provisional attachment during pending assessment proceedings when necessary to protect revenue, and expiry of one year does not bar a fresh attachment order if the statutory conditions continue to exist.

---