<?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>2024 (4) TMI 999 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751818</link>
    <description>The SC ruled that a Section 83 order for bank account seizure becomes invalid after one year. The court clarified that the bank cannot restrict account operations based on an expired provisional attachment order. The judgment specifically addressed the time limitation of such orders under the Central GST Act, 2017, while preserving the authority&#039;s right to issue new attachment orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2025 10:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 999 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751818</link>
      <description>The SC ruled that a Section 83 order for bank account seizure becomes invalid after one year. The court clarified that the bank cannot restrict account operations based on an expired provisional attachment order. The judgment specifically addressed the time limitation of such orders under the Central GST Act, 2017, while preserving the authority&#039;s right to issue new attachment orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>