GST Rulings

Objection against provisional attachment to be decided within a reasonable time, in the absence of an express provision in GST law

Order of the High Court of Rajasthan

[dated 02.09.2024, in Adabala Naryana Rao v. Union of India, from D.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 13552 of 2024]

The petitioner's bank account was provisionally attached under section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 vide Form GST DRC-22.  According to rule 159(5) of the CGST Rules, 2017, any person whose property is attached may file objections in FORM GST DRC-22A to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable to attachment. The Commissioner may, after affording an opportunity of being heard, release the said property by an order in FORM GST DRC-23. However, the said sub-rule does not provide a time limit within which such objections should be decided.

In the instant case, the objections were pending for over two months. The Hon'ble court observed that the objections must be decided within a reasonable time and cannot be pending indefinitely. If the objections are pending for a long time without decision, it would frustrate the very object of consideration of objections as engrafted under rule 159(5) ibid.

In the absence of an express provision, the Hon'ble Court held that such objections must be decided within three months from the date of submission of the objections. It also held that an appropriate circular must be issued prescribing the time limit which such objections should be decided, lest the provisions under rule 159(5) ibid are rendered nugatory and an empty formality, keeping in view that the maximum period of provisional attachment under section 83 ibid is only one year.

Comments

The aforesaid decision would help several assessees who are in the dock awaiting release. In the interest of justice, time limit to dispose of such objections must be incorporated in the rules and and enforced.

Srinivasan V, Advocate

Recent Posts

Why right to cross-examination is not unfettered: Delhi HC

[Order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, dated 09.04.2025, in W.P. (C) No. 4576…

2 weeks ago

EWB detention proceedings conclude on penalty payment, no need to issue order: Orissa HC

Orissa HC judgment dt. 18.02.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 3055 of 2025 Goods were detained &…

2 months ago

Refund limitation for GST wrongly paid

GST was paid but later clarified as not payable by a beneficial circular. In Messrs…

3 months ago

GST | Should 3 months be construed as 90 days for limitation?

Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court [dated 05.02.2025, in Cotton Corporation of India vs.…

3 months ago

GST | Should the date of issue of notice/order be included to calculate limitation?

Order of the Patna High Court [dated 04.02.2025, in Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs.…

3 months ago

Notice/order can be served on the portal only if it cannot be served in person / by post / email: Madras HC

Order of the High Court of Madras [dated 06.01.2025, in Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham vs. Authority,…

4 months ago