Page 100 - GSTL_14th May 2020_Vol 36_Part 2

202 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
tion 83, it is evident that Section 83 does not provide for an extension of an order
for provisional attachment and any such extension shall be de hors the statute.
Section 83 empowers the competent authority to issue an order for provisional
attachment of property including bank accounts if it is of the opinion that such a
step is necessary for protecting the interest of government revenue. It is palpably
clear that Section 83(2) permits continuation of a provisional attachment order
for a period of one year from the date of order after which it ceases to remain in
effect. However, there is nothing in the section which indicates that upon com-
pletion of the prescribed period, a fresh order cannot be issued. To say this
would amount to supplying such requirements into the section which would go
against the well-established principles of interpretation of statutes. In the view
point of the Court, after the expiry of the time period, the appropriate authority
may be of the opinion that such an attachment is further required to protect the
interest of government revenue, and may therefore, issue a fresh order upon
compliance of the formalities in Section 83(1).
32. One may also examine the scheme of the GST Act, 2017 in relation
to provisional attachment. Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 has to be read with
Sections 67 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017.
As is evident from Section 74, the time limit for issue of show cause notice is four
and half years, while the adjudication is required to be completed within five
years of the particular evasion of tax/fraudulent transaction. At this juncture, I
ask myself this question as to whether the Legislature would have intended to
allow the investigation to be continued for a period of four and half years but
only allowed protection to the government revenue for a period of one year. Sec-
tion 83(2) provides for a period for cessation of the provisional attachment. This
provision does not in any manner prevent the authorities to issue a fresh order of provi-
sional attachment if the requirements under Section 83(1) are met. The period of one
year has been provided only to bring about a balance between the rights of the
assessee and the interest of the Revenue.
33. I make it clear that the Court has not gone into the sufficiency of
reasons with respect to the fresh order of provisional attachment under Section
83 as the writ petitions filed challenging the same do not raise that point at all. In
fact, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner has categorically stated in Court that
the petitioners are not challenging the sufficiency of reasons and are only chal-
lenging the legality of issue of the fresh order of provisional attachment. Based
on the above submissions, no affidavits were called on from the Respondents to
explain the sufficiency of reasons for issue of the fresh order of provisional at-
tachment. However, it may be noted that Mrs. Gupta, counsel on behalf of the
respondents has categorically submitted in Court that apart from the reasons
provided in the affidavits filed in the earlier writ petitions, fresh material has also
been unearthed by the DGGI.
34. However, given the far-reaching consequences of provisional at-
tachment under Section 83, the Court is of the opinion that an issuance of a fresh
order under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 will require a fresh review and as-
sessment of the circumstances in hand. In no manner, a fresh order should be
issued in the garb of an extension of the earlier order without actually evaluating
and analysing the requirement of doing so.

GST LAW TIMES  14th May 2020  100