<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (2) TMI 127 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417876</link>
    <description>HC allowed petitioner&#039;s challenge against bank account freeze under CGST Act. Court ruled that per Section 83(2), provisional attachment orders automatically cease after one year from initial order date. Since respondents confirmed no fresh attachment order existed, the court directed authorities to de-freeze the specified bank accounts within three working days, emphasizing statutory time limits for provisional attachments must be strictly followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2025 13:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=669220" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 127 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417876</link>
      <description>HC allowed petitioner&#039;s challenge against bank account freeze under CGST Act. Court ruled that per Section 83(2), provisional attachment orders automatically cease after one year from initial order date. Since respondents confirmed no fresh attachment order existed, the court directed authorities to de-freeze the specified bank accounts within three working days, emphasizing statutory time limits for provisional attachments must be strictly followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>