Delhi High Court
M/S Krish Overseas vs Commissioner Central Tax-Delhi West & ... on 16 April, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva
Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 5407/2024 & CM APPL. 22339/2024
M/S KRISH OVERSEAS ..... Petitioner
Versus
COMMISSIONER CENTRAL TAX-DELHI WEST & ORS.
.... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr. Vikas Sareen, Mr.
Ayush Mittal, Ms. Maninder Kaur and Mr. Oshin
Maggu, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ateev Mathur, Advocate for HDFC Bank.
Mr. Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel for
respondent No.1 and 2 with Mr. Subham Kumar and Mr.
Vipul Teotia, Advocates.
,,
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns communication dated 14.08.2019 issued under
Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Act') to the Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Paschim
Vihar Branch to seize the outward movement of funds from the bank
account of the petitioner bearing No. 50200033141636.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the validity of an order
under Section 83 of the Act is one year and despite the passage of one year,
the Bank is not permitting the operation of the said account.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for
respondents No.1 and 2 as also by learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.3. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final
disposal.
4. Section 83 of the Act, under which the impugned communication
dated 14.08.2019 has been issued, reads as under:-
"83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in
certain cases.
(1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under
section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or
section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the
opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of
the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he
may, by order in writing attach provisionally any
property, including bank account, belonging to the
taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to
have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from
the date of the order made under sub-section (1)."
5. Section 83 empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach any
property including a bank account, belonging to a taxable person for the
purposes of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, if in the
opinion of the Commissioner, it is necessary to do so. Section 83(2)
stipulates that every provisional attachment ceases to have effect after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date said order is made under
Section 83 (1) of the Act.
6. In view of Section 83 (2) of the Act, the life of an order of
provisional attachment is only one year. In the instant case, the impugned
communication is dated 14.08.2019 and a period of one year has elapsed
from the issuance of the said communication. Consequently, the impugned
order dated 14.08.2019 has ceased to be effective and cannot be any more
implemented either by the respondents No.1 and 2 or the HDFC Bank i.e.,
respondent No.3. Accordingly, it is declared that order dated 14.08.2019
ceases to have effect. Consequently, respondent No.3, HDFC Bank
henceforth cannot restrain operation of the bank account of the petitioner
based solely on the basis of order dated 14.08.2019.
7. Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. It is,
however, clarified that this order would be without prejudice to any other
order of provisional attachment issued by either respondents No.1 and 2 or
any other authority communicated to the HDFC Bank. In case any such
order is communicated to the HDFC Bank, the Bank shall give due
credence to the same irrespective of this order.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has till date not
been communicated any other order of attachment issued either by
respondents No.1 and 2 or any other authority and reserves the right of the
petitioner to take appropriate proceedings against any order, if so
communicated.
9. Dasti under signature of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
APRIL 16, 2024
NA
