Tirupati Steel Through Proprietor Rahul Mittal Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
The Delhi High Court heard a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account. The attachment had been ordered through a letter dated 27 October 2023 in Form GST DRC-22 issued by the Additional Director General of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Gurugram Zonal Unit. The attachment was imposed under Section 83 of the CGST Act pursuant to an investigation initiated against the petitioner under Section 74 for alleged unpaid taxes.
The petitioner argued that the attachment had lapsed under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, which provides that a provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after one year from the date of issuance. Since more than a year had passed, the petitioner contended that the attachment was no longer valid. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Krish Overseas v. Commissioner, Central Tax, where it held that provisional attachment orders lose effect once one year elapses, and banks cannot restrain operation of accounts based on such expired orders.
The Court clarified that the show cause notice proceedings would continue independently in accordance with law. The petition and pending applications were disposed of, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the concerned Bank Manager for compliance.
