Allowed

Sandeep Ramkrishna Arora v. State of Maharashtra Thr Agp Office and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Dec 2023WP/15465/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that a provisional attachment of a bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act ceases to operate by operation of law after the expiry of one year, rendering the order ineffective.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order provisionally attaching the petitioner's bank account is held to have ceased to operate and rendered ineffective.

Sandeep Ramkrishna Arora Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Agp Office… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Digitally signed by KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Date: 2023.12.12 10:24:00 +0530

¶2

905-wp-15465-2023.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 15465 OF 2023

¶6

M/s. Picture Thoughts Productions Ltd. through Its Authorized Person Sandeep Ramkrishna Arora ...Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, through AGP Office & Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

Mr. Brijesh Pathak i/by Sachwani Anand Mohanlal, for Petitioner. Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. G.P. for Respondent/State.

¶10

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

¶11

DATE : DECEMBER 11, 2023.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Vyas,

¶14

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶15

2. The prayers as made in the petition which reads thus:

¶16

“(a) Rule be issued;

¶17

(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, after perusing the relevant documents in the matter of impugned Order dated vide letter dated 18.08.2022 in letter Ref No.JC INVB/INV-NO-103/Provisional Attachment/202223/b-418 Mumbai (Annexure-E) from Office of Joint Commissioner of State Tax and after examining the validity, propriety and legality of the same, set aside the same;

¶18

(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Petition, the Respondent be directed to defreeze the Bank account provisionally attached.

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

Kiran Kawre

¶21

-------------------------
December 11, 2023

¶22

905-wp-15465-2023.odt

¶23

(d) Interim/ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer (b) and (c) above;

¶24

(e) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order dated 18 August 2022, whereby the petitioners Bank account was provisionally attached, would ceased to operate in view of the clear provisions of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act. It is his submission that there is no fresh order which has been passed, hence, the petition needs to be allowed. In support of such contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Abans Enterprises limited & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.¹ ., whereby considering the provisions of Section 83(2) the Court had held that the provisional attachment remains in operation for a period not exceeding one year from the date it is made, and it shall cease to have effect under sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act.

¶26

4. Learned counsel for the respondents would also not dispute that already the period of one year has been expired.

¶27

5. In this view of the matter, considering the clear provisions of subsection (2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act, the petition needs to succeed by operation of law.

¶28

1 2023 (6) TMI 1187.

¶29

Page 2 of 3

¶30

Kiran Kawre

¶31

-------------------------
December 11, 2023

¶32

905-wp-15465-2023.odt

¶33

6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18 August 2022

¶34

provisionally attaching the petitioners Bank account has ceased to operate, and is rendered ineffective. Ordered accordingly.

¶35

7. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶36

[JITENDRA JAIN, J.]

¶37

[G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶38

Page 3 of 3

¶39

Kiran Kawre

¶40

-------------------------
December 11, 2023

Sandeep Ramkrishna Arora v. State of Maharashtra Thr Agp Office and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Ramkrishna Arora v. State of Maharashtra Thr Agp Office and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Indusina Exim L.L.P Representative Manging Partner Radhakrishna Pillai Vs the Commissioner of Customs (Import ) Jawaharalal Nehru Custom House and Anr. )

Pritpal Singh Kalsi S/O Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India through Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Subright Designers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pp Office and Ors.

Hydro Pneumatic Accessories India Private Limited vs the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Mulund West

Nutan Warehousing Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner, Central Tax, Pune-Ii and Ors.

Ht Media Limited through Authorised Representative Vs the Commissionerr of Cstoms, Ns-v and Anr.