https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394035 The court held that both the Principal Additional Director General and Additional Director General are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, in favor of the Revenue. It found that the authorities acted illegally by keeping provisional attachments beyond one year without issuing a fresh order, violating the petitioners' rights. The court allowed the issuance of fresh orders of provisional attachment under Section 83 after one year, emphasizing the need for a fresh review of circumstances. The court imposed costs on the respondent authorities for their illegal actions. en-us Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Mar 2025 15:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394035 The court held that both the Principal Additional Director General and Additional Director General are competent to pass orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, in favor of the Revenue. It found that the authorities acted illegally by keeping provisional attachments beyond one year without issuing a fresh order, violating the petitioners' rights. The court allowed the issuance of fresh orders of provisional attachment under Section 83 after one year, emphasizing the need for a fresh review of circumstances. The court imposed costs on the respondent authorities for their illegal actions. Case-Laws GST Wed, 04 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=394035