Amit Metaliks Limited Vs Commissioner (Calcutta High Court)
The Calcutta High Court partly allowed two writ petitions challenging a provisional attachment order dated 3rd January, 2025 issued under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Patna-II. The order had attached the petitioner’s property, including bank accounts situated within the jurisdiction of the Court.
In WPA/1940/2025, the petitioner initially sought a declaration that the proceedings under Section 83, including the attachment order issued in Form GST DRC-22, were void on the ground that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and competence. However, during the hearing, it was submitted that since more than one year had elapsed from the date of the provisional attachment order, further consideration of jurisdictional issues was no longer necessary. Reliance was placed on Section 83(2) of the Act, which provides that every provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order under Section 83(1).
The petitioner submitted that although the statutory period of one year had expired, and letters dated 21st January, 2026 and 27th January, 2026 were sent to the Commissioner and the State Bank of India requesting defreezing of the bank account, no action was taken. A further request dated 29th January, 2026 was also made to the bank, but the account remained frozen. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (2), Enforcement Division–5, reported in 2025 INSC 983, which clarified that the statute does not permit extension of provisional attachment beyond one year, and no such extension is permissible.
