High Court rules in favor of petitioner challenging bank's account restriction due to expired attachment order

The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner in a challenge against a bank's decision to restrict their account based on an expired attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court held that the attachment order had lost its legal effect as it exceeded the maximum duration allowed. The bank was directed not to take any further action based on the expired order. The writ petition, WPA No.10012 of 2021, was disposed of with these observations, noting that the allegations by the petitioner were considered denied by the respondents.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to bank's action based on attachment order under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the respondent bank's decision to not allow them to operate their account due to an attachment order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the attachment order had expired as its maximum duration is one year. The respondent, representing the CGST authority, confirmed that they had not extended the attachment order beyond the initial period.

The High Court considered the submissions from both parties and ruled in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the attachment order issued on 25th October, 2019, had lost its legal effect as it exceeded the maximum permissible duration under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017. Consequently, the bank's decision to restrict the petitioner from operating their account based on the expired attachment order was deemed unjustified. The Court directed the bank not to take any further action based on the said attachment order.

The writ petition, numbered WPA No.10012 of 2021, was disposed of with the aforementioned observations. Notably, the Court clarified that since the petition was resolved without requiring affidavits, the allegations presented by the petitioner were considered as denied by the respondents.

---