Provisional attachment under Section 83 requires a formed opinion, tangible material, and strict procedural safeguards before bank accounts are frozen.

Provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 is a drastic measure and is valid only if the authority first forms a reasoned opinion, supported by tangible material, that attachment is necessary to protect revenue. The precondition requires a live nexus with the statutory purpose and strict compliance with procedural safeguards. On the facts discussed, the pre-attachment communication and attachment notices were vague and deficient, and the mandatory safeguards were not followed; the text states that the attachment was therefore unlawful and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts under Section 83 was lawful in the absence of a properly formed opinion, tangible material, and due compliance with the statutory safeguards.

Analysis: The attachment power under Section 83 is drastic and can be exercised only when the authority forms an opinion, before ordering attachment, that such action is necessary to protect the interests of revenue. That opinion must rest on tangible material and bear a live nexus to the statutory purpose. The pre-attachment communication and the attachment notices were found to be vague and deficient, and the mandatory procedural safeguards were not followed. In these circumstances, the coercive attachment of bank accounts, without adherence to the statutory requirements, amounted to a breach of civil rights and an abuse of the power vested in the authorities. The law requires strict observance of the preconditions for provisional attachment, and the impugned action failed that test.

Conclusion: The provisional attachment was unlawful and was quashed and set aside in favour of the assessee.

---