https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398092 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the provisional attachment of their business account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was invalid. Despite the revocation of registration cancellation, the bank account remained attached, exceeding the one-year validity period of the attachment order. The Revenue department's delay in providing necessary instructions was criticized for causing undue hardship to the petitioner. The court directed the competent authority to release the attachment and issue a fresh order in compliance with the law. en-us Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398092 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the provisional attachment of their business account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was invalid. Despite the revocation of registration cancellation, the bank account remained attached, exceeding the one-year validity period of the attachment order. The Revenue department's delay in providing necessary instructions was criticized for causing undue hardship to the petitioner. The court directed the competent authority to release the attachment and issue a fresh order in compliance with the law. Case-Laws GST Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398092