The Calcutta High Court has ruled that provisional attachment of property and bank accounts under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act automatically ceases after the expiry of one year from the date of the attachment order, and cannot be continued thereafter. Neither the GST authorities nor banks can continue to freeze accounts on the strength of an attachment order that has outlived its statutory life.
The bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury disposed of two writ petitions filed by a steel manufacturer and a trading company, both challenging provisional attachment orders dated January 3, 2025, issued by the Commissioner, Central GST & Central Excise, Patna-II under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act.
In the first petition, the petitioner had originally questioned not only the legality of the attachment but also the jurisdiction of the Patna-based Commissioner to attach bank accounts situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. However, during the course of hearing, the petitioner confined its relief to the limited issue that, by operation of Section 83(2), the attachment had already expired after one year and therefore could no longer be enforced.
The petitioner pointed out that despite the statutory lapse, repeated representations to the GST department and to State Bank of India seeking defreezing of the accounts had evoked no response. It was argued that the issue was no longer res integra in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, where the apex court held that the CGST Act does not permit extension, renewal or re-issuance of provisional attachment orders once they lapse after one year.
The High Court examined Section 83 of the CGST Act, which authorises provisional attachment to protect revenue after initiation of proceedings under specified chapters, but expressly states in sub-section (2) that “every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order.” The Court noted that the attachment order in question was digitally signed on January 6, 2025, and the statutory period had undeniably expired.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Kesari Nandan Mobile, the Court reiterated that where a statute does not provide for extension, executive authorities cannot assume such power. Consequently, once the one-year period expires, the attachment order loses all force by operation of law.
The court held that neither the Commissioner nor the petitioner’s bank could lawfully continue freezing the accounts on the basis of an attachment order that had ceased to exist. The writ petition was therefore partly allowed, with the Court granting a declaration that the attachment order dated January 3, 2025 could not be continued any further. The Court consciously refrained from examining the larger issue of territorial jurisdiction or competence of the Commissioner.
Case Details
Case Title: M/S. Amit Metaliks Limited Vs The Commissioner
Case No.: WPA/1940/2025
Date: 06.02.2026
Counsel For Petitioner: Saurabh Bagaria
Counsel For Respondent: Shib Shankar Banerjee
