TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1831
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sioner of CGST and Central Excise challenging the common order passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.4779 and 4780 of 2022 dated 27.04.2022, which were in turn filed against the proceedings of the writ appellant's order of provisional attachment of the bank account of the writ petitioners, invoking the power under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 r/w Rule 159(1) of the CGST Rules, 2017 and as well, the consequential order passed by the writ appellant, rejecting the objections raised by the writ petitioners against the said provisional attachment. 2.For the sake of convenience, the appellant in these writ appeals is referred as the appellant and the respondent in the writ appeal is referred as the writ petitioner. 3.The order of provisional attac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng tax liability to be arrived at and further directed that passing of a speaking order on such representation by the writ petitioners shall be done by the writ appellant preferably by 13.05.2022, thereby enabling the writ petitioners to pay salaries to their workers/employees. With these observations, the Writ Petitions were disposed of. Aggrieved against the said innocuous order, the present Writ Appeals have been filed. 9.The Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment delivered in Kesari Nandan Mobile Vs. Office of Assistant reported in 2025 INSC 983 = (2026) 5 SCC 461, has categorically held that any order of provisional attachment passed by the GST Authority in exercise of power under Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017, can remain in for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct after a period of a year. The provision, as it stands, does not require employment of other interpretation rules beyond a literal interpretation to understand it. The appellant, thus, seeks a declaration that there being no provision for renewal, any such exercise is a nullity in law. .......... 39.In fact, despite the statute having provided for a lapse after one year, it has been observed that debit-freeze continues for long after that, compelling the citizens to approach the high courts for an order seeking lifting of attachment which, by the statute, already stands lifted. [See Aashna Singhal v. Commr. of GST19, Merlin Facilities (P) Ltd. v. Union of India20, Arpit Trading Co. v. Commr. of GST21, Sutantu Care (P) Lt....