ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL Vs. ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is preferred by the Revenue aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that an order of provisional attachment issued under Sec. 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 cannot continue beyond a period of one year and that on the same set of facts, a fresh order of provisional attachment cannot be issued thereafter.

(2.) In the appeal before us, the Revenue contends that the interpretation placed by the learned Single Judge goes against the statute and, thereby, the interest of the Revenue is substantially prejudiced and thus requires reconsideration by this Court.

(3.) The short facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The petitioners are the partners of 'SR Traders' dealing primarily in the trade of scrap. On 4/5/2023, a notice to show cause was issued in terms of Sec. 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('CGST Act', for short). Immediately thereof, the appellants issued a notice of provisional attachment over immovable properties as well as freezing of Bank accounts. The said action of the appellants were questioned before this Court in WP(C) No.12519/2023, which resulted in dismissal of Writ Petition by Ext.P3 judgment. On appeal preferred against Ext.P3 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1250/2023 (Ext.P4) allowed the writ petitioner to operate two accounts while confirming the order of attachment over the other accounts. Thereafter, after a period of one year, the first appellant issued a fresh order under Sec. 83(1) of the CGST Act and issued an intimation to the Sub Registrar's office intimating the order of attachment. Challenging reissuance of the order of attachment, the petitioners approached the writ court. On consideration of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that Sec. 83 of the CGST Act has to be construed strictly and the statute does not authorise the authorities to re-issue the order of attachment which has ceased to have operational on expiry of one year. While forming an opinion, the learned Single Judge followed the settled rule of interpretation of statutes.