property be alive more year
|
Case Title |
Nitin Singhania vs Commissioner of Central Tax GST Delhi. |
|
Court |
Delhi High Court |
|
Honorable Judges |
Justice Rajiv Shakdher & Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju |
|
Citation |
2022 (7) GSTPanacea 175 HC Delhi W.P.(C) 10389 /2022 & CM No.29962/2022 |
|
Judgement Date |
29-July-2022 |
|
Council for Petitioner |
R.P.Singh Shivam Tyagi |
|
Council for Respondent |
Arunima Dwivedi Ashi Sharma Ved Prakash |
The New Delhi High Court bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher & Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju has held that the attachment order cannot continue more than one year.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The principal grievance of the petitioner is that provisional attachment of the bank accounts and immovable property in issue was ordered, as far back as on 31.03.2021
As per Section 83 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the maximum timeframe available to the respondent for keeping the attachment alive is one year
Respondent, says that she cannot but agree with the said position. It is, however, the submission of Ms Narain, that she would like to return with instructions
property be alive more year
COURT HELD
Considering the facts as recorded, held that the provisional attachment order dated 31.03.2021 has been reviewed and/or extended, no fresh attachment order has been passed
In these circumstances, on a plain reading of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the attachment order cannot continue more than one year.
property be alive more year
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
As per Section 83 of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the maximum timeframe available to the respondent for keeping the attachment alive is one year
Accordingly, the respondent is directed to lift the attachment
The respondent will convey the information in this behalf, to the concerned bank, within three days of the receipt of a copy of the order passed today
Download PDF:
For Reference Visit: