- 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
Gujrat High Court Lifts Provisional Attachment Of Property Facing No Proceedings
Gujrat High Court Lifts Provisional Attachment Of Property Facing No Proceedings The Court noted that no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 were pending on the date when the order was passed for the provisional attachment of the Petitioner's property u/S 83 of the GST Act The Gujrat High Court lifted the provisional attachment of the Petitioner's property on the ground that...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Gujrat High Court Lifts Provisional Attachment Of Property Facing No Proceedings
The Court noted that no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 were pending on the date when the order was passed for the provisional attachment of the Petitioner's property u/S 83 of the GST Act
The Gujrat High Court lifted the provisional attachment of the Petitioner's property on the ground that no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 were pending on the date of the order.
A Division Bench of the High Court of Gujrat, comprising Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Dr Ashokkumar C. Joshi, dealt with the matter titled M/s Mahavir Enterprise v State Of Gujarat.
The Petitioner – Company had challenged the provisional attachment of his property u/S 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax, 2017 (GST Act). The Respondent – State placed on record a copy of the remarks made by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, regarding the proceedings of the Petitioner.
The Court took into account those remarks in order to arrive at a decision. It was noticed by the Court that no proceedings under Sections 73 or 74 were pending on the date when the order was passed for the provisional attachment of the Petitioner's property u/S 83 of the GST Act.
The Court observed that the powers u/S 83 of the GST Act with regard to the provisional attachment could be exercised only during the pendency of proceedings for the Section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 and 74 of the GST Act.
The Court prima-facie noted that the powers exercised u/S 83 of the GST Act appeared to be arbitrary. Therefore, it directed the Respondent – State to state on affidavit as to under what circumstances the order of attachment was passed.
The provisional attachment of the Petitioner's property was lifted in the meantime.