High Court declares bank account attachment under CGST Act ceases after one year

The High Court of BOMBAY allowed the petition, declaring that the provisional attachment order of the petitioner's bank account under section 83(1) of the CGST Act ceased to exist by operation of law after the one-year period had lapsed. The court directed the Joint Commissioner to inform the petitioner's banker that the attachment order was no longer valid, enabling the petitioner to access the bank account within seven days. The court also instructed for the appeal to be decided promptly by the Respondents due to the relief sought and potential backlog of appeals, with no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues:
Provisional attachment of bank account under section 83(1) of the CGST Act - Ceasing of attachment order by operation of law after one year.

Analysis:
The High Court of BOMBAY considered a case where the Joint Commissioner (Anti-Evasion) CGST & CX. Belapur had passed an order for the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argued that the provisional attachment order should cease to exist by operation of law as the period of one year from the date of attachment had expired. The court noted that the one-year period had indeed lapsed from the date of the provisional attachment. Section 83(1) and 83(2) of the CGST Act were referred to, which state that every provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).

The court, observing that the one-year period had elapsed and the provisional attachment had not been lifted, allowed the petition, declaring that by operation of law, the provisional attachment order ceases to exist. The Joint Commissioner was directed to inform the petitioner's banker that the attachment order is no longer in force, allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account within seven days. Regarding the appeal mentioned in the petition, it was directed that the appeal should be decided by the Respondents on its merits and in accordance with the law. The court requested respondent No.4 to expedite the decision on the appeal due to the nature of the relief sought and the potential backlog of appeals.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, emphasizing the automatic cessation of the provisional attachment order after the expiry of one year as per the provisions of the CGST Act.

---