- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court: Section 83(2) Of CGST Act Renders Provisional Bank Account Attachment Inoperative After One Year
Delhi High Court: Section 83(2) Of CGST Act Renders Provisional Bank Account Attachment Inoperative After One Year
The Delhi High Court by its division judge’s bench of Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan has clarified that Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax, Act 2017 (CGST Act) renders provisional bank account attachment inoperative after one year.
In the present case, the petitioner had filed a petition, impugning an order dated 13 January, 2021, whereby the bank accounts of the petitioner were provisionally attached.
The respondent’s counsel argued that the inquiries conducted indicated that the petitioner was a non-existent person and had not cooperated during the investigation.
However, it was not disputed that no further orders had been passed to recover any dues from the petitioner.
The Court on perusal of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act observed that, “It is clear from the plain language of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act that the operation of an order provisionally attaching the bank account would cease to be operative after the expiry of the statutory period of one year.”
Therefore, the Court held that in the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned order dated 13 January, 2021 had ceased to be operative.
Since the impugned order was no longer operative, no orders were required for setting aside the same. Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition.