https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406721 Whether the provisional attachment under Section 83 was valid: Court held that the expression "adjudicating authority" does not include the Commissioner, and the Commissioner's delegation to the Joint Commissioner meant the Joint Commissioner acted as delegate exercising Section 83(1) powers; such an order was not appealable under Section 107(1) and was amenable to writ under Article 226 - outcome: High Court erred in refusing writ. The delegation and procedure violated Rule 159(5) and principles of natural justice by denying required opportunity of hearing, and Section 83 cannot be invoked against the appellant merely because proceedings concluded against another taxable entity; outcome: provisional attachment dated 28 October 2020 set aside and writ allowed. en-us Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jan 2026 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406721 Whether the provisional attachment under Section 83 was valid: Court held that the expression "adjudicating authority" does not include the Commissioner, and the Commissioner's delegation to the Joint Commissioner meant the Joint Commissioner acted as delegate exercising Section 83(1) powers; such an order was not appealable under Section 107(1) and was amenable to writ under Article 226 - outcome: High Court erred in refusing writ. The delegation and procedure violated Rule 159(5) and principles of natural justice by denying required opportunity of hearing, and Section 83 cannot be invoked against the appellant merely because proceedings concluded against another taxable entity; outcome: provisional attachment dated 28 October 2020 set aside and writ allowed. Case-Laws GST Tue, 20 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406721