Stay updated
The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of The Principal Commissioner of Central Tax & Anr. held that Section 83 of the CGST Act does not mandate a pre-decisional hearing before ordering provisional attachment of property, including bank accounts.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Benito Operations and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. held that once an appeal has been filed against an adjudication order, along with the mandatory pre-deposit as required under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act. The provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 83 cannot be sustained and is to be set aside.
THE HON’BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Elitecon International Ltd. V/s Union of India Writ Petition No. 4934 of 2024, decided on 5-9-2024
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kesari Nandan Mobile held that a provisional attachment under Section 83 CGST Act, 2017 ceases by operation of law after one year and cannot be renewed or reissued on substantially the same grounds without disposing representations, absent express statutory authority.
HC quashes attachment of bank accounts as no material was produced to show that it was necessary to do so
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of JV Creatives (P.) Ltd. dismissed the writ petition filed against the order of provisional attachment passed under Section 83 of the CGST Act wherein the Commissioner prima facie opined that passing of order was necessary to protect revenue interest in case where the Hon’ble High Court was of the view that there is nexus between the supplier and recipient in case wherein it has been alleged that the supplier was non-existent and the invoice has been issued without the supply of goods.
The Hon’ble Telangana High Court in the case of Aarush Enterprises set aside the order of provisional attachment of bank account under Section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (“the CGST Act”), taking into consideration sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act, which clearly states that the provisional attachment passed under the aforesaid provision would be valid for a period of one year only.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nikhil Gupta held that the Principal Additional Director, DGGI is empowered to pass the order of provisional attachment of bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of RHC Global Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. allowed the application and directed ‘lifting’ and ‘defreezing’ of bank account attachment. Although, attachment had lapsed, there has been a renewal of attachment. Hence, directed to unfreeze the bank account that was previously frozen (blocked from access) and had been re-attached or frozen again after the original freeze had expired.
Section 6(2)(b) prohibits the initiation of parallel proceedings by State and Central authorities on the same subject matter.
Once a proceeding is initiated by State Tax Authority, the DGGI cannot initiate parallel proceedings on the same subject matter i.e. regarding the same supplier.