A provisional attachment of property under the GST law automatically expires after one year.

By | September 27, 2025

A provisional attachment of property under the GST law automatically expires after one year.


Issue

Can a provisional attachment of a bank account, made under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, continue to be in effect for a period longer than one year from the date the attachment order was initially made?


Facts

  • The GST department, after issuing a show-cause notice, ordered the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, citing the need to protect the interest of the revenue.
  • The petitioner’s request to the department to de-freeze the account was rejected.
  • More than one year had passed since the date on which the attachment order was made.
  • The assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court, arguing that as per the specific provisions of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, the attachment had automatically lapsed by law and was no longer valid.

Decision

The High Court ruled decisively in favour of the assessee.

  • It held that the language of Section 83(2) of the Act is clear and unambiguous. A provisional attachment ceases to have any legal effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order.
  • Since the one-year statutory period had lapsed in this case, the attachment of the bank account was no longer valid and was set aside.
  • To ensure immediate relief, the court explicitly directed the concerned bank manager to give effect to its order and allow the assessee to operate the account, without waiting for any further communication from the GST department (DGGI).

Key Takeways

  • Attachment has a Strict One-Year Lifespan: A provisional attachment under Section 83 is a temporary and drastic power given to tax authorities. It comes with a strict, built-in expiry date of one year.
  • The Expiry is Automatic: The attachment does not need to be formally lifted by the department after the one-year period is over; it ceases to have effect automatically by the operation of the law itself.
  • A Safeguard for Taxpayers: This one-year limit is a crucial legislative safeguard for taxpayers. It prevents the department from indefinitely freezing a business’s working capital and causing undue hardship while proceedings are still pending.
  • Enforcing Judicial Orders: The court’s specific direction to the bank manager to act on its order without waiting for the department’s instructions is a significant measure to ensure that its orders are implemented immediately and the taxpayer gets prompt and effective relief.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Kanta Food Product
v.
Union of India
PRATHIBA M. SINGH and SHAIL JAIN, JJ.
W.P.(C) 10398 of 2024
CM APPL. 42732 of 2024
SEPTEMBER  12, 2025
Ms. Mamta Sharma, Adv. for the Petitioner. Anurag Ojha, SSC and Dipak Raj, Adv. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Prathiba M. Singh, J.- This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – M/s Kanta Food Product under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, assailing the order dated 15th July, 2024 issued by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence, Gurugram Zonal Unit (hereinafter, ‘DGGI’).
3. The Petitioner engaged in the manufacture of food products and was served with the Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘SCN’) on 2nd February, 2024. In respect of the said SCN, the bank account of the Petitioner was attached vide order dated 7th March, 2024. The said bank account is as under:
Bank: HDFC Banks
Branch: Rohini
Account No.: 50200001632681
4. The Petitioner sought defreezing of the bank account which was rejected vide order dated 15th July, 2024 in the following terms:
“Order
It is necessary to keep the bank account Number 50200001632681 (HDFC BANK LTD. BLOCK NO.5, SECTOR 11, ROHINI, DELHI-110085) of M/s Kanta Food Product provisionally attached for protecting the interest of Government revenue vide DRC 22 dated 07.03.2024. Accordingly, the request of M/s Kanta Food Product to remove the provisional attachment order is here by rejected.”
5. The grievance in this case is restricted to the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner. The submission on behalf of the Petitioner is that under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the attachment cannot continue beyond one year. This position has also been settled by this Court in Tirupati Steel v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 12844 of 2025, dated 25-8-2025]/2025:DHC:7392-DB where it has been held as under:
“5. The case of the Petitioner is that in view of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, the provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year and the period has already expired. The Section 83 of the CGST Act is extracted hereunder:

“83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases.—

(1) Where, after the initiation of any proceeding under Chapter XII, Chapter XIV or Chapter XV, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing, attach provisionally, any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person or any person specified in subsection (1A) of section 122, in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1). ”

6. This issue has already been considered by this Court in Krish Overseas v. Commr., Central Tax, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2865 wherein it has been observed as under:

“4. Section 83 of the Act, under which the impugned communication dated 14.08.2019 has been issued, reads as under:—

“83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. (1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing attach provisionally any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).”

5. Section 83 empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach any property including a bank account, belonging to a taxable person for the purposes of protecting the interest of the Government revenue, if in the opinion of the Commissioner, it is necessary to do so. Section 83(2) stipulates that every provisional attachment ceases to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date said order is made under Section 83(1) of the Act.
6. In view of Section 83(2) of the Act, the life of an order of provisional attachment is only one year. In the instant case, the impugned communication is dated 14.08.2019 and a period of one year has elapsed from the issuance of the said communication. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.08.2019 has ceased to be effective and cannot be any more implemented either by the respondents No. 1 and 2 or the HDFC Bank i.e., respondent No. 3. Accordingly, it is declared that order dated 14.08.2019 ceases to have effect. Consequently, respondent No. 3, HDFC Bank henceforth cannot restrain operation of the bank account of the petitioner based solely on the basis of order dated 14.08.2019.”
7. Insofar as the investigation itself is concerned, ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the same has culminated into the Show Cause Notice dated 29th June, 2025.
8. In view of the mandate in Section 83(2) of the Act, the provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year and in the present case the same has already lapsed. Accordingly, the provisional attachment of the Petitioner’s bank account is lifted. “
6. In view thereof, the time having lapsed in terms of Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, the attachment of the bank account is set aside. The Petitioner is free to operate the bank account. The concerned Manager of the bank shall give effect to this order without any further communication from the DGGI.
7. No other relief in respect of the order dated 23rd July, 2024 is pressed by the Petitioner.
8. Petition is disposed of in these terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.