https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765588 HC held that provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under s.83 of the MGST Act, 2017 was unjustified. The court emphasized that s.83 is draconian and its conditions must be strictly fulfilled, requiring a contemporaneous, recorded opinion by the Commissioner that attachment is necessary to protect revenue. The impugned order lacked material or reasoning showing any likelihood that the petitioner would defeat recovery, so the attachment was quashed and the petition disposed. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765588 HC held that provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account under s.83 of the MGST Act, 2017 was unjustified. The court emphasized that s.83 is draconian and its conditions must be strictly fulfilled, requiring a contemporaneous, recorded opinion by the Commissioner that attachment is necessary to protect revenue. The impugned order lacked material or reasoning showing any likelihood that the petitioner would defeat recovery, so the attachment was quashed and the petition disposed. Case-Laws GST Fri, 31 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765588