The power to provisionally attach a taxpayer’s bank account under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) law is one of the most stringent measures available to the tax authorities. While the power is intended to protect government revenue during investigations, it is not meant to be exercised indefinitely. Yet, several businesses continue to face situations where their bank accounts remain frozen even after the expiry of one year from the date of the provisional attachment order.

The CGST Act itself imposes a statutory time limit on provisional attachment. If the attachment continues beyond that period without a fresh order satisfying the legal requirements, taxpayers can seek immediate withdrawal of the attachment by filing objections before the jurisdictional authority and, where necessary, approaching the High Court.

A draft representation seeking removal of provisional attachment under Form GST DRC-22 typically addresses the jurisdictional authority, sets out the factual background, cites Section 83 of the CGST Act, explains why the attachment is no longer warranted, and requests immediate de-freezing of the bank account. 

Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

Statutory Framework Governing Provisional Attachment

Section 83 of the CGST Act

Section 83 empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach any property, including a bank account, during the pendency of specified proceedings if he forms an opinion that such attachment is necessary for protecting the interest of government revenue.

This power is exceptional because:

• it directly affects the taxpayer’s business operations;
• it restricts access to bank accounts and other assets;
• it can seriously impact working capital and business continuity.

Therefore, courts have consistently held that Section 83 must be exercised sparingly and only when the statutory conditions are strictly fulfilled.

Rule 159 of the CGST Rules

Rule 159 prescribes the procedure for provisional attachment.

Once an order is issued in Form GST DRC-22, the affected person is entitled to:

• file objections against the attachment; and
• seek a personal hearing before the Commissioner.

These safeguards ensure that the taxpayer gets an opportunity to demonstrate why the attachment should be withdrawn.

The draft representation attached by the user follows this statutory procedure by requesting removal of the provisional attachment, explaining the factual circumstances, and relying upon judicial precedents supporting release of the bank account. 

Can a GST Bank Account Remain Frozen Beyond One Year?

Generally, No.

Section 83 itself provides that every order of provisional attachment ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order.

Therefore:

• once one year expires,
• the attachment automatically loses legal force,
• unless a fresh attachment order is issued in accordance with law and fresh statutory conditions are satisfied.

Authorities cannot simply continue operating on an expired attachment order.

Why This Issue Matters

For many businesses, a frozen bank account effectively means:

• inability to pay employees;
• disruption of vendor payments;
• default in statutory dues;
• interruption of day-to-day business operations;
• loss of goodwill.

Recognising these consequences, courts have repeatedly described Section 83 as a draconian power requiring strict judicial scrutiny.

Supreme Court on Provisional Attachment

Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021)

This landmark Supreme Court judgment remains the leading authority on Section 83.

The Court held that:

• provisional attachment is an extraordinary power;
• the Commissioner must independently form an opinion based on tangible material;
• there must be a direct nexus between the attachment and protection of government revenue;
• Rule 159(5) safeguards—including objections and opportunity of hearing—must be followed.

The Court further observed that provisional attachment cannot become a routine administrative exercise.

The uploaded draft also relies upon this landmark judgment while seeking withdrawal of the attachment. 

Gujarat High Court: Attachment Cannot Continue Indefinitely

In Joint Commissioner CGST & Customs v. Grabdeal International (2023), the Gujarat High Court dealt with continuation of provisional attachment beyond one year.

The Court observed that:

• provisional attachment cannot survive beyond the statutory period;
• authorities must either release the attachment after expiry of one year or issue a fresh attachment order if legally justified;
• indefinite continuation violates the safeguards built into Section 83.

This judgment has become one of the most important authorities relied upon by taxpayers seeking de-freezing of bank accounts.

The draft representation specifically cites this decision while arguing that the attachment should not continue after the statutory one-year period. 

Delhi High Court: One-Year Limit is Mandatory

In Vardhman Exim v. Union of India (2021), the Delhi High Court held that:

• provisional attachment under Section 83 automatically ceases after one year;
• after expiry of the statutory period, the bank account must be de-frozen;
• authorities cannot continue relying upon an expired order.

The judgment reinforces the legislative intent that provisional attachment is only a temporary protective measure.

Gujarat High Court on Protection of Business

In Utkarsh Ispat LLP v. State of Gujarat (2022), the Gujarat High Court held that:

• personal assets of partners cannot be attached without establishing liability of the LLP;
• attachment of stock and receivables should not unnecessarily cripple business operations;
• CBIC guidelines also discourage attachment that completely paralyses legitimate business activity.

The draft representation refers to this judgment while highlighting the hardship caused by continued freezing of business accounts. 

When Can You Seek Withdrawal?

A taxpayer should immediately seek withdrawal where:

• one year has expired from the DRC-22 attachment order;
• tax liability has already been discharged;
• returns have been filed;
• investigation is substantially complete;
• attachment is causing disproportionate hardship;
• statutory proceedings under Section 83 were not validly initiated;
• procedural safeguards under Rule 159 were not followed.

How to File a Representation?

A well-drafted request should contain:

1. Reference to DRC-22

Mention:

• notice number;
• date;
• authority issuing the attachment.

2. Bank Account Details

Clearly identify:

• account number;
• bank;
• branch.

3. Legal Grounds

Explain:

• expiry of one-year limitation;
• absence of statutory conditions;
• compliance with GST requirements;
• payment of taxes, interest and late fee (where applicable).

4. Business Hardship

Demonstrate how continued attachment affects:

• salaries;
• vendors;
• statutory payments;
• business continuity.

5. Judicial Support

Cite leading precedents supporting release of attachment.

6. Prayer

Request immediate withdrawal of the attachment and issuance of necessary directions to the concerned bank.

The uploaded draft adopts this structure by narrating the facts, referring to Section 83, highlighting compliance, explaining business hardship, citing judicial precedents, and requesting immediate removal of the provisional attachment. It also includes a checklist of supporting documents such as the DRC-22 notice, GST return filing proof, payment receipts, and bank statements. 

Practical Tips for Taxpayers

Before submitting the representation:

• attach a copy of the DRC-22 order;
• include proof of GST compliance;
• enclose payment challans;
• attach relevant bank statements;
• prepare a chronology of events;
• rely upon recent judicial precedents;
• request an opportunity of personal hearing.

If no action is taken despite expiry of the statutory period, the taxpayer may consider approaching the jurisdictional High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the attachment.

Draft Format: Request for Removal of Provisional Attachment of Bank Account under Form GST DRC-22

Date: ___________

To

The Principal Commissioner/Principal Additional Director General
Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI)/Jurisdictional GST Authority

Subject: Request for Removal of Provisional Attachment of Bank Account under Form GST DRC-22 issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017

Reference: Form GST DRC-22 dated __________

Respected Sir/Madam,

We respectfully submit this representation seeking withdrawal of the provisional attachment of our bank account ordered under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Our bank account bearing Account No. __________ maintained with __________ Bank, __________ Branch has been provisionally attached pursuant to Form GST DRC-22 dated __________.

We respectfully submit the following facts for your kind consideration:

1. Statutory Position

Section 83 of the CGST Act empowers the Commissioner to provisionally attach property, including bank accounts, only where proceedings under the specified Chapters have been initiated and where such attachment is considered necessary for protecting the interest of Government revenue.

The said power is extraordinary in nature and is required to be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory conditions prescribed under the Act.

2. Expiry of One-Year Period

The provisional attachment order was issued on __________.

As provided under Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, every order of provisional attachment ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order.

Since more than one year has elapsed, the attachment has lost its statutory force and deserves to be withdrawn immediately.

3. Compliance by the Taxpayer

Without prejudice to our rights and contentions, we submit that:

• All pending GST returns have been duly filed.
• Applicable tax, interest and late fee, wherever payable, have already been discharged.
• We have fully cooperated with the investigation.
• Necessary records and documents have been furnished whenever called upon.

Copies of relevant returns and payment challans are enclosed.

4. Severe Financial Hardship

The continued freezing of our bank account has resulted in serious financial hardship.

It has adversely affected:

• payment of salaries and wages;
• statutory compliances;
• payment to suppliers;
• repayment of bank liabilities;
• day-to-day business operations.

The attachment is causing irreparable damage to our business despite there being no justification for its continuation.

5. Judicial Precedents

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2021) held that the power under Section 83 is draconian and must be exercised strictly in accordance with law.

The Gujarat High Court in Joint Commissioner CGST & Customs v. Grabdeal International (2023) observed that provisional attachment cannot continue beyond one year unless a fresh order satisfying statutory requirements is passed.

Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Vardhman Exim v. Union of India (2021) held that provisional attachment automatically ceases after one year and the bank account must be released thereafter.

Further, in Utkarsh Ispat LLP v. State of Gujarat (2022), the Gujarat High Court emphasized that provisional attachment should not unnecessarily cripple legitimate business operations.

These judicial pronouncements clearly establish that continuation of attachment beyond the statutory period is unsustainable in law.

6. Prayer

In view of the facts stated above and the settled legal position, we most respectfully request your good office to:

1. withdraw the provisional attachment ordered under Form GST DRC-22;
2. issue necessary directions to the concerned bank for immediate de-freezing of our bank account;
3. pass an appropriate speaking order under Rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules after granting us an opportunity of hearing, if considered necessary; and
4. pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice.

We shall remain grateful for your kind consideration.

Thanking You.

Yours Faithfully,

For ___________________________

Authorized Signatory

Name: __________________

Designation: __________________

GSTIN: __________________

Address: __________________

Contact Number: __________________

Email: __________________

Enclosures

1. Copy of Form GST DRC-22.
2. Copy of provisional attachment order.
3. GST registration certificate.
4. Copy of GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns.
5. Tax payment challans.
6. Bank account statement.
7. Relevant correspondence with the department.
8. Any other supporting documents.

Note: The uploaded draft similarly contains a representation addressed to the jurisdictional GST authority, cites Section 83 of the CGST Act, explains compliance and hardship, relies on leading judicial precedents such as Radha Krishan Industries, Utkarsh Ispat LLP, Grabdeal International and Vardhman Exim, and concludes with a prayer for immediate withdrawal of the provisional attachment along with a list of enclosures. 

Conclusion

The power of provisional attachment under Section 83 is intended to safeguard government revenue—not to indefinitely immobilise a taxpayer’s business. The statutory framework, judicial precedents, and constitutional safeguards all make it clear that a provisional attachment cannot continue perpetually. Once the prescribed one-year period expires, the attachment ordinarily ceases to operate unless a fresh order is validly issued under the law.

Businesses whose bank accounts remain frozen beyond this period should promptly file a reasoned representation seeking withdrawal of the attachment, supported by evidence of compliance and relevant judicial precedents. Where administrative remedies fail, constitutional courts have consistently intervened to protect taxpayers against arbitrary and prolonged exercise of provisional attachment powers.

Read More: Residual Royalty on Domestic & Third-Party Procurement Not Liable to Customs Duty: CAAR