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 a provisional attachment order passed under Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year under Section 83(2) and, if so, whether bank accounts provisionally attached must be de-frozen and made operable.
Analysis: Section 83(1) authorises provisional attachment of property including bank accounts; Section 83(2) provides that every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order under sub section (1). The Court relied on the statutory text and the Supreme Court decision in Kesari Nandan Mobile, which held that where the statute does not provide for extension, renewal or re issuance of a provisional attachment after efflux of the one year period, no extension is permissible. The petitioners had shown that more than one year had elapsed since the provisional attachment dated 3rd January, 2025, and that requests to the Commissioner and banks to de freeze accounts had not been acted upon. The Court observed that once the statutory one year period has expired, the provisional attachment ceases to have effect and neither the tax authority nor the bank may continue the freezing of property or bank accounts based on that order.
Conclusion: The provisional attachment effected by the order dated 3rd January, 2025 has ceased to have effect by efflux of time under Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; accordingly the bank accounts so attached shall be de frozen and made operable and neither the Commissioner nor the banks can continue the freezing on the basis of that expired provisional attachment. The writ petitions are partly allowed to this extent in favour of the assessee.