Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account and vehicle under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 had ceased to operate after one year, and whether consequential directions were required to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account and prevent further action on the attachment order.
Analysis: The attachment was made under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The statutory scheme provides that an order of provisional attachment ceases to operate after the expiry of one year from the date of the order. Since the impugned attachment orders were no longer operative, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the reasons or basis for issuing them. The banks and the registering authority were directed not to act on the basis of the impugned communications or orders, and the respondent was directed to ensure compliance with the standing directions requiring communication once the attachment ceases to operate.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment could not survive beyond the statutory period of one year, and the petitioner was entitled to operate the bank account without interference on the basis of the impugned orders. The attachment-related directions were therefore issued in favour of the petitioner.