ByteDance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

ByteDance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India — GST and Indirect Tax | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed and Rule made absolute; impugned provisional attachment order dated 22 March 2024 declared to have ceased to have effect post 21 March 2025 and formally quashed and set aside; Respondents to write to the 3rd Respondent Bank within a week and, upon production of an authenticated copy of the order, the 3rd Respondent Bank to release/de-freeze the Petitioner's bank account; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the provisional attachment order dated 22 March 2024, invoking Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, ceased to have effect on expiry of the one-year period under Section 83(2) and ought to be declared ineffective and quashed.

Court's answer

An order of provisional attachment made under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act shall cease to have effect after the period of one year.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned provisional attachment order dated 22 March 2024 ceased to have effect post 21 March 2025.

Key takeaways

The Petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 22 March 2024 is declared to have ceased to have effect post 21 March 2025 and is formally quashed and set aside, following the approach in Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors in identical circumstances.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CGST – Provisional attachment of bank account – Writ Petition No. 740 of 2025 (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Bombay High Court; M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.; order per M.S. Sonak, J., dated 15 July 2025). Challenge to provisional attachment of the petitioner Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt Ltd's bank account invoking Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, pursuant to an order dated 22 March 2024 made under Section 83(1). HELD: the provisions of Section 83(2) are clear that an order of provisional attachment made under Section 83(1) shall cease to have effect after the period of one year; accordingly, the impugned order dated 22 March 2024 ceased to have effect post 21 March 2025. Relying on this Court's decision in Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors, 2025 (7) TMI 398, rendered in identical circumstances, the Court allowed the petition, declared the impugned order to have ceased to have effect, and formally quashed and set it aside. The respondents were directed to write to the 3rd Respondent Bank within a week, and upon production of an authenticated copy of the order the bank was to release/de-freeze the petitioner's bank account. Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

12-WP-740-2025-F.DOCX

Amol

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 740 OF 2025

Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt Ltd …Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors …Respondents

Mr Sriram Sridharan , (through VC) with Adv. Shanmuga Dev & Ms Aditi Jain, for the Petitioner.

Ms Maya Majumdar , with Mr Harshad Shinganpurkar & Adv, Sontrik Kar, for the Respondent.

CORAM M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 15 July 2025

ORAL ORDER (per M. S. Sonak, J)

Digitally signed by AMOL AMOL PREMNATH PREMNATH JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2025.07.16 12:45:45 +0530

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

The challenge in this Petition is to the order of provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s Bank account by invoking Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017.

A period of one year has already elapsed since the issuance of the impugned provisional attachment order in terms of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017. The provisional attachment order ceased to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of an order made under Section 83(1) of

Page 1 of 3

12-WP-740-2025-F.DOCX

the CGST Act, 2017. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22 March 2024 has ceased to have effect post 21 March 2025.

The Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit before us asserting that no further order for provisional attachment has been made. Ms Majumdar seeks some time to obtain instructions on this.

In identical circumstances, this Court, in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors¹ had declared and quashed the provisional attachment order by relying on the provisions of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act 2017.

Since, in this Petition, we are only concern with the order of provisional attachment dated 22 March 2024 and not with any other order that may or may not have been made, we see no necessity for granting any adjournment. The provisions of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act are quite clear in that order of provisional attachment made under Section 83(1) shall cease to have effect after the period of one year.

Accordingly, we allow this Petition and declare that the impugned order dated 22 March 2024 has ceased to have effect post 21 March 2025. The same is formally quashed and set aside.

The Respondents must write to 3^rd Respondent Bank within a week from today regarding this order. In any event, within a week fro today, upon the production of an authenticated copy of this order, the 3^rd Respondent Bank must release/de-freeze the Petitioner’s Bank account, now that

1 2025 (7) TMI 398

Page 2 of 3

12-WP-740-2025-F.DOCX

the impugned provisional attachment order dated 22 March 2024 is quashed and set aside.

The Rule is made absolute. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(Jitendra Jain, J)

(M.S. Sonak, J)

Page 3 of 3