https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406721 Article explains that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available against provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act because the alternate remedy rule is discretionary and does not bar challenge where jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice is alleged. It further states that provisional attachment is a drastic power that can be used only while the specified proceedings are pending, on tangible material, and on a necessity-based opinion to protect revenue. Rule 159(5) requires notice, objections, and a hearing before the attachment is sustained. On the facts described, the attachment was held invalid and the challenge succeeded. en-us Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jul 2026 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406721 Article explains that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains available against provisional attachment under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh GST Act because the alternate remedy rule is discretionary and does not bar challenge where jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice is alleged. It further states that provisional attachment is a drastic power that can be used only while the specified proceedings are pending, on tangible material, and on a necessity-based opinion to protect revenue. Rule 159(5) requires notice, objections, and a hearing before the attachment is sustained. On the facts described, the attachment was held invalid and the challenge succeeded. Case-Laws GST Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406721