https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438042 Provisional attachment of a company's bank accounts under s.83 CGST was challenged where the authorities alleged it was a dummy entity facilitating fraudulent ITC. The HC held that attachment premised on s.122(1A) can be ordered only by a Commissioner having jurisdiction over the relevant taxable person, and s.122(1A) applies only where the person retains the benefit of specified transactions or the transactions are conducted at that person's instance; absent any such allegation against the petitioner, the attachment was unsustainable and was set aside. The HC further held that s.83 requires an opinion based on relevant material and a live nexus, not suspicion based merely on a director's prior employment; the attachment order was quashed, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law. en-us Tue, 16 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 14:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438042 Provisional attachment of a company's bank accounts under s.83 CGST was challenged where the authorities alleged it was a dummy entity facilitating fraudulent ITC. The HC held that attachment premised on s.122(1A) can be ordered only by a Commissioner having jurisdiction over the relevant taxable person, and s.122(1A) applies only where the person retains the benefit of specified transactions or the transactions are conducted at that person's instance; absent any such allegation against the petitioner, the attachment was unsustainable and was set aside. The HC further held that s.83 requires an opinion based on relevant material and a live nexus, not suspicion based merely on a director's prior employment; the attachment order was quashed, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Case-Laws GST Tue, 16 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438042