2025-VIL-121-KER
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-121-KER

SGST High Court Cases

GST – Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Re-issuance of provisional attachment order, Interpretation of Statutes - Revenue issued provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act against the properties of the petitioners - Petitioners challenged the re-issuance of the attachment order after the expiry of one year from the initial order – Revenue appeal against Ld. Single Judge holding that an order of provisional attachment cannot continue beyond a period of one year and that on the same set of facts, a fresh order of provisional attachment cannot be issued thereafter - Whether the authorities can re-issue a provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act after the expiry of the one-year period – HELD – The Section 83(2) of the CGST Act clearly provides that the provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the initial order – the Legislature intended to confer the validity on the order of attachment only for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the order. Hence, on expiry of a period of one year, the provisional attachment loses its efficacy – Not inclined to agree with the argument of the appellant-Dept that in order to protect the interest of the Revenue, it has to be construed as conferring power on the authorities to issue fresh orders of attachment. Accepting this argument would certainly amount to supplying words to the statute – The Court is unable to concur with the views held by the Gujarat High Court in Shrimati Priti W/o Anil Amrutlal Gandhi case since adopting the interpretation placed by the Gujarat High Court, will amount to conferring the power on GST authorities to re-issue the order of attachment in respect of the same property over which the earlier order of provisional attachment ceased to have effect, which is not intended by the legislature. Moreover, the same would amount to supplying words into the statute, which is impermissible under law - the right to property is a constitutional right protected under Article 300A and any deprivation of property by the State must follow due process of law. The doctrine of Eminent Domain requires the State to be cautious when dealing with the property rights of citizens. Therefore, in the absence of any enabling provision in the statute, the authorities cannot re-issue the attachment order after the expiry of the one-year period – The views expressed by the ld. Single Judge is upheld and the writ appeal filed by the Revenue authorities is dismissed
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Credit Notes ITC Reversal in IMS…
By Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?