https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400026 The High Court held that the continuation of a provisional attachment order beyond the prescribed one-year period under the CGST Act, 2017 was illegal and lacked jurisdiction. The court directed the respondent bank to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account immediately, deeming the impugned order unsustainable after the expiry of the one-year period. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and related pending petitions were to be closed accordingly. en-us Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400026 The High Court held that the continuation of a provisional attachment order beyond the prescribed one-year period under the CGST Act, 2017 was illegal and lacked jurisdiction. The court directed the respondent bank to allow the petitioner to operate the bank account immediately, deeming the impugned order unsustainable after the expiry of the one-year period. The Writ Petition was allowed with no costs, and related pending petitions were to be closed accordingly. Case-Laws GST Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400026