<?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>2025 (7) TMI 398 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774330</link>
    <description>A provisional attachment under the CGST Act ceases to operate on the expiry of one year from the date of the order under Section 83(1). The fact that adjudication proceedings were later completed and an appeal was filed did not revive or extend the attachment once it had lapsed by operation of law. The bank account could therefore not continue to remain attached after the statutory period expired, and consequential release followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2025 08:42:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834077" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 398 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774330</link>
      <description>A provisional attachment under the CGST Act ceases to operate on the expiry of one year from the date of the order under Section 83(1). The fact that adjudication proceedings were later completed and an appeal was filed did not revive or extend the attachment once it had lapsed by operation of law. The bank account could therefore not continue to remain attached after the statutory period expired, and consequential release followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>