Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI Ms. Revathi Manivannan defended the department’s position, arguing that successive attachment orders had been passed by the DGGI, which were not challenged by the petitioner. She submitted that the department had the authority to issue successive provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act without any prohibition. Ms. Revathi Manivannan further informed the court that after issuing show cause notices to the petitioner and obtaining his reply, the department had subsequently passed orders for reversal of tax credit.

[10/08, 11:01] Sekarreporter: http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx1hJtZDSP82hhiW–kDTWtH9O7NQajRdA?si=1C822c5EK2kU3ErE
[10/08, 11:01] Sekarreporter: Chennai, August 4: The Madras High Court has ruled that a provisional attachment order issued by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) in 2021 has automatically expired, directing that businessman K. Venkatesan’s frozen bank account be made operational immediately. The Division bench comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Hon’ble Justice Sunder Mohan delivered the judgment in a case where the petitioner, proprietor of Wintel Marketing and Services, challenged the prolonged freezing of his City Union Bank account for over four years.

Senior Standing Counsel for DGGI Ms. Revathi Manivannan defended the department’s position, arguing that successive attachment orders had been passed by the DGGI, which were not challenged by the petitioner. She submitted that the department had the authority to issue successive provisional attachment orders under Section 83 of the CGST Act without any prohibition. Ms. Revathi Manivannan further informed the court that after issuing show cause notices to the petitioner and obtaining his reply, the department had subsequently passed orders for reversal of tax credit.

The court observed that under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, a provisional attachment order has a statutory life of only one year, after which it “attains its natural demise and loses its effect” if it is not continued during ongoing investigation. Despite the DGGI’s submissions regarding successive attachment orders and subsequent proceedings, the court noted that the provisional attachment order was passed on February 23, 2021, and had expired by operation of law after one year. The court specifically observed that the provisional attachment order was not continued due to the expiry of the statutory time limit, and held that the petitioner’s account stands legally de-attached.

The court partly allowed the petition, declaring that the petitioner’s bank account stands “de-attached/defreezed” and is open for operation.