Futurist Innovation & Advertising Vs Union Of India

2. Mr. Dhananjay B. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 waives service. Ms. Sangeeta Yadav, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 and 4 waives service.

3. By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.

4. The Petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, to set aside the provisional attachment of Account No.0235201004109 maintained with the Petitioner’s bank – M/s Canara Bank, Mumbai by way of letter No. V(AE) 20/GST-FBD/SALCUST.Cochin/168/2019-20/2854 dated 11 October 2019 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad, Haryana.

5. The Petitioner is a sole proprietary concern engaged in the business of advertising and marketing. On 11 October 2019, the Petitioner was informed by its banker, i.e. M/s Canara Bank, Mumbai-400 004 that the bank account of the Petitioner had been freezed by a letter issued by Assistant Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax, GST Bhavan, Faridabad, Haryana.

6. The GST registration of the Petitioner has been cancelled suo-moto by the GST, Mumbai Commissionerate since 14 December 2020.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner invited our attention to the said order of attachment and submits that the said provisional attachment expired on 10 October 2020 in view of the Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (“Act”). Learned Counsel placed on record a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh¹ and in particular paragraph 42 and 43 in support of submission that the provisional attachment cannot be continued beyond the period of one year in view of Section 83(2) of the said Act.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on instructions, states that the said attachment order, which is impugned in this petition is continued by the Respondents even today. The statement is accepted.

9. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 could not dispute that the provisional attachment was effected by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on 11 October 2019 under Section 83(2) of the said Act.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra) has dealt with this issue in detail and has approved the decision taken by Gujarat High Court in case of Valerius Industries Vs. Union of India². It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the power to order a provisional attachment is entrusted during pendency of the proceedings under any of the specified provisions under Sections 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74. It is when a proceeding under any of these provisions is pending that a provisional attachment can be ordered. It is held that under sub-section (2) of Section 83, a provisional attachment ceases to have effect upon the expiry of the period of one year of the order being passed under sub-section (1). The power to levy a provisional attachment has been entrusted to the Commissioner during the pendencdy of proceedings under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or as the case may be, Section 74. The principles laid down in the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra) apply to the facts of this court. We are respectfully bound by the said judgement.

11. In our view the provisional attachment levied by the Respondents on 11 October 2019 under Section 83(2) of the said Act ceased to have effect on expiry of one year. We, therefore, pass the following order.

(1) Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer (i) of the petition.

(2) Rule is made absolute.

(3) No order as to costs.

(4) Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this Order.

Note: 

1. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334

2. 2019 (30) GSTL 15 (Gujrat)