2025 (3) TMI 322 - HC - GST

Provisional Attachment Under Section 83 of WBGST/CGST Act 2017 Expired; Court Allows Other Lawful Actions.

JL Enterprises Versus Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ballygunge Charge.

The HC of Calcutta disposed of a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment under Section 83 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The Court held that the ... Challenge to provisional order of attachment issued under Section 83 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- In terms of the scheme of Section 83 of the said Act, a provisional attachment ordinarily seizes to have effect after expiry of one year from the date of the order made under Sub-section (1) thereof. Having regard thereto, and without going into the question as to whether the respondents can seek to implement their demand consequent upon dismissal of the appeal, I am of the view that the order of attachment passed under Section 83 (1) of the said Act dated 13th April, 2023 has in effect expired by efflux of time and cannot be enforced against the petitioner at this stage any further. The same shall, however, not stand in the way of the respondents from proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of any independent cause of action or for enforcing the demand in accordance with law. Petition disposed off. The High Court of Calcutta considered a writ petition challenging a provisional order of attachment issued under Section 83 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The key legal issue was whether the attachment order issued on 13th April, 2023, could be continued after the expiry of one year from its issuance, especially in light of subsequent events such as the final order passed under Section 74 of the Act and the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107.The petitioner argued that as per Section 83 of the Act, an attachment order typically ceases to have effect after one year from its issuance. Additionally, the petitioner contended that since the proceedings initiated under Section 74 had concluded with a final order and a demand raised, the attachment order could no longer be sustained. The petitioner further asserted that by making a pre-deposit and filing an appeal under Section 107, the demand in Form DRC 07 could not be enforced further, thus rendering the attachment order invalid.On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appeal had been dismissed, making the petitioner's defense under Section 107(7) unavailable.The Court, after considering the arguments of both parties, interpreted Section 83 of the Act and noted that a provisional attachment typically expires after one year from its issuance. Without delving into the enforceability of the demand post-appeal dismissal, the Court held that the attachment order issued on 13th April, 2023, had effectively expired by the lapse of time and could not be enforced against the petitioner any further. However, the Court clarified that this decision did not prevent the respondents from pursuing the petitioner based on independent causes of action or enforcing the demand in accordance with the law.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the attachment order could not be enforced due to its expiration by efflux of time. The parties were instructed to act based on the server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of the Court. No costs were awarded in the matter.