<?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>2026 (5) TMI 1725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792522</link>
    <description>Provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act lapses by operation of law when the statutory one-year period expires. The attachment here was made on 19 December 2024, and the respondents did not dispute that the one-year limit under Section 83(2) had already run out. Because the statutory period had expired, the attachment ceased to have effect automatically, and the petitioner was entitled to operate the bank account.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 08:59:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 1725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792522</link>
      <description>Provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act lapses by operation of law when the statutory one-year period expires. The attachment here was made on 19 December 2024, and the respondents did not dispute that the one-year limit under Section 83(2) had already run out. Because the statutory period had expired, the attachment ceased to have effect automatically, and the petitioner was entitled to operate the bank account.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>GST</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792522</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>