Attachment of petitioner's bank account set aside as Section 83(2) statutory period has lapsed; bank must restore access immediately

HC set aside the attachment of the petitioner's bank account, holding that the statutory period under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act had lapsed. The petitioner is free to operate the bank account. The bank manager must give effect to this order without awaiting any further communication from the DGGI. The petition is disposed of.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether a provisional attachment under Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can continue in force beyond one year, notwithstanding ongoing investigation or issuance of a show cause notice.

2. Whether a provisional attachment that has exceeded one year from the date of the order is automatically ineffective and must be lifted, and consequential relief concerning operation of the attached bank account.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Temporal limit on provisional attachment under Section 83(1) and effect of ongoing proceedings

Legal framework: Section 83(1) empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach any property, including a bank account, "for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue" during the pendency of specified proceedings. Section 83(2) provides that "Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1)." The statutory text prescribes both the power to attach and a hard temporal limit.

Precedent treatment: The Court relied on earlier decisions of this Court which have directly construed Section 83(2) to mean that the life of a provisional attachment is one year and that the attachment ceases to have effect on expiry of that period. Those decisions were followed and applied to the facts before the Court.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court applied a textual interpretation of Section 83(2), observing that the provision unequivocally limits the duration of a provisional attachment to one year from the date of the attachment order. The presence of ongoing investigations or subsequent issuance of a show cause notice does not, by the text of Section 83(2), extend the statutory one-year limit. The Court treated the statutory limitation as mandatory and operative irrespective of the pendency of other proceedings under the Act. Where a provisional attachment order has remained in force for more than one year, the statutory mandate operates to terminate the attachment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The holding that a provisional attachment ceases by operation of Section 83(2) on expiry of one year is ratio decidendi as applied to the disputed bank-account attachment. Remarks that ongoing investigations culminating in a show cause notice do not extend the one-year period are necessary to the decision and thus part of the ratio. Any ancillary observations about the authority or prudence of provisional attachments generally are obiter.

Conclusion: A provisional attachment made under Section 83(1) cannot lawfully continue beyond one year; the statutory one-year period is determinative and not extended by the pendency of investigation or issuance of a show-cause notice.

Issue 2 - Consequences of lapse of provisional attachment and relief to the taxpayer/bank

Legal framework: Section 83(2)'s cessation clause effects automatic termination of the provisional attachment after one year. The enforcement of provisional attachment once lapsed cannot lawfully be continued by tax authorities or by third parties such as banks acting solely on the basis of the expired order.

Precedent treatment: Consistent with prior decisions relied upon, the Court held that once the one-year period lapses, the attachment "ceases to have effect" and cannot be implemented further by authorities or the bank.

Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the statutory cessation directly to the facts, the Court found the period of provisional attachment had expired. The Court therefore set aside the attachment and directed that the bank allow operation of the account without awaiting further communication from the investigating authority. The Court distinguished the existence of a show cause notice or continuing investigation as not preventing the statutory cessation; if the authority wishes to secure revenue further, it must act within the statutory scheme (for example, by fresh valid orders consistent with statute), but it cannot rely on an expired attachment.

Ratio vs. Obiter: The directive that the bank must permit operation of the account and that the attachment is set aside is ratio as applied to the concluded factual and legal question. Any procedural guidance to authorities about re-issuance or other steps is obiter unless required for implementation.

Conclusion: Where a provisional attachment has lapsed under Section 83(2), the attachment is set aside and the account holder is entitled to operate the bank account; the bank must give effect to the court's order without awaiting further communication from the tax authority. Ongoing investigation or issuance of a show cause notice does not validate continuation of an expired provisional attachment.

---