ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT: SECOND PROVISIONAL ATTACHMENT NOTICE LACKING FRESH RESPONSE IS ARBITRARY

The Allahabad High Court in the case M/S RD Enterprises v.Union of India And30thers observed and has stated that issuing a second provisional attachment notice without providing new or fresh reasons is considered arbitrary.

- TDG NETWORK

The Division bench comprising of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla in the case observed that the department cannot be allowed simpliciter to issue a second notice, and thereafter, third and fourth and continue with the provisional attachment for four to five years without giving any fresh reason for the said provisional attachment. If the same was allowed, the Sub-section 2 of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 would become otiose and have no relevance whatsoever. The section 83(1) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, CGST 2017 allows the Commissioner to provisionally attach any property, which includes a bank account, if they believe it is necessary to protect government revenue during the pendency of proceedings under section 62, section 63, section 64, section 67, section 73, or section 74. The said attachement must be done through a written order.

The section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 imposes a time limit on the provisional attachment. It specifies that the provisional attachment will automatically cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order.

FACTS OF THE CASE: