Re-issuance of Provisional Attachment under Section 83 not Permissible Beyond One Year

Case Title: The Additional Director General, DGGI & Anr. v. Ali K. & Anr.
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Petition No.: WA No. 63 of 2025 (arising from WP(C) No. 19121 of 2024)
Category: Provisional Attachment – Validity under Section 83 CGST Act
Date of Judgment: 30 January 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 83(1) & (2) CGST Act, 2017; Article 265 & 300A Constitution of India

Facts of the Case (Paras 3–4, 7–9)

• The respondents, partners of SR Traders, engaged in scrap trade, were issued a show cause notice under Section 74 CGST Act on 04.05.2023.

• Subsequently, their immovable properties and bank accounts were provisionally attached under Section 83. (Para 3)

• Earlier writ petitions challenging this attachment were partly allowed, permitting operation of two bank accounts while continuing attachment over others (WA No. 1250/2023). (Para 3)

• After expiry of one year, a fresh order of provisional attachment was issued on the same properties. (Para 3)

• The Single Judge held that Section 83 must be construed strictly; once the attachment lapses after one year, it cannot be re-issued. (Para 3)

Question in Consideration (Paras 2, 5)

• Whether, after expiry of one year under Section 83(2), the tax authorities are empowered to re-issue a fresh provisional attachment order on the same set of facts?

Observations of the Court (Paras 6–11)

1. Strict Interpretation of Section 83 –
   Section 83(2) explicitly provides that provisional attachment ceases after one year. Parliament did not empower authorities to re-issue fresh orders. Reading such power into statute would amount to judicial legislation. (Paras 7–8)

2. Rejection of Gujarat HC view –
   Gujarat High Court in Shrimati Priti v. State of Gujarat (2011 SCC OnLine Guj 1869) held that re-issuance is permissible. Kerala HC disagreed, holding it impermissible as it supplies words into the statute. (Paras 7–8)

3. Constitutional Property Rights –
   The right to property under Article 300A must be protected. Provisional attachment, being an exceptional measure before adjudication, must be applied with caution and strictly within statutory limits. (Paras 9–10)

4. Supreme Court Guidance –
   Relied upon Radha Krishna Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2021) 6 SCC 771], which held that provisional attachment under Section 83 ceases after one year and cannot be extended. (Para 11)

Judgment of the Court (Para 11)

• The Court dismissed the Revenue’s writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s ruling.

• Fresh provisional attachments after expiry of one year are invalid under Section 83.

• No order as to costs.

Between Fine Lines

• A provisional attachment under Section 83 CGST Act is valid only for one year.

• Authorities cannot re-issue attachment orders on the same facts once the one-year limit expires.

• The Court rejected Gujarat HC’s contrary view.

• Right to property under Article 300A requires strict statutory adherence.

• Revenue has other remedies; provisional attachment is not indefinite.

Summary of Referred Cases

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”