https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790953 A second provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act cannot be sustained on the same facts after the earlier attachment has lapsed by efflux of time, absent any real change in circumstances or new facts. The Delhi HC treated provisional attachment as a draconian, pre-emptive measure intended only as a temporary safeguard, not as a recovery device after the statutory period ends. Applying the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, the Court held the repeated attachment impermissible and allowed the petition. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 May 2026 07:56:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790953 A second provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act cannot be sustained on the same facts after the earlier attachment has lapsed by efflux of time, absent any real change in circumstances or new facts. The Delhi HC treated provisional attachment as a draconian, pre-emptive measure intended only as a temporary safeguard, not as a recovery device after the statutory period ends. Applying the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly, the Court held the repeated attachment impermissible and allowed the petition. Case-Laws GST Fri, 24 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790953