Case Law Details
Cyberpoint Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Central Goods And Service Tax (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court addressed an appeal concerning the provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Counsel for both parties agreed that the issue had already been settled by the Supreme Court in its order dated 03.03.2025 in Om Prakash Gupta versus Principal Additional Director General.
In that case, the Supreme Court noted that although the petitioner had challenged a provisional attachment order, a final order under Section 74 of the CGST Act had subsequently been passed. The Court held that there was no need to adjudicate the challenge to the provisional attachment on merits once the final order existed, and any challenge to the final order should be considered independently and on its own merits.
Importantly, the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier ruling in M/s Radha Krishan Industries versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., stating that once a final order under Section 74 is passed, the provisional attachment ceases to have effect.
Relying on this settled position, the Rajasthan High Court disposed of the present appeal and held that the provisional attachment order automatically comes to an end upon the passing of a final order under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Ranka, Advocate assisted by Ms. Satvika Jha, Advocate
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involved in this matter has already been considered and decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 03.03.2025 in the matter of “Om Prakash Gupta versus Principal Additional Director General” in SLP Appeal (C) No(s).28903 of 2024 wherein it has been held as under:
“1. The subject matter of challenge before the High Court was an order of provisional attachment of bank account of the petitioner passed by the Commissioner under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the CGST Act”). The challenge before the High Court failed. In such circumstances, the petitioner is here before this Court with the present petition.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that during the interregnum period a final order under Section 74 of the CGST Act has been passed and the petitioner is in the process of challenging the said final order in accordance with law. In such circumstances, we need not now adjudicate this special leave petition on merits. The final order passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, if ultimately challenged shall be looked into on its own merits in accordance with law without being influenced in any manner by any of the observations made by the High Court in its impugned order.
3. This Court in M/s Radha Krishan Industries versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (Civil Appeal No 1155 of 2021 arising out of SLP(C) No 1688 of 2021), has categorically said that once the final order is passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment comes to an end.
4. The special leave petition stands disposed of.
5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.”
In that view of the matter, this appeal is disposed of and it is held that once the final order is passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment order comes to an end.
Author Bio
