Facts of the Case

M/S MJ Bizcrafts LLP challenged a letter dated 10 May 2024, issued in Form GST DRC-22, by which its bank account had been provisionally attached. The petitioner's central contention was that under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017, a provisional attachment order ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of the order, so the attachment had lapsed by the time the matter came up for hearing before the Delhi High Court. During the hearing, the department's Senior Standing Counsel informed the Court that a fresh DRC-22 had since been issued. The petitioner also confirmed that it had already filed a statutory appeal against the underlying Order-in-Original dated 31 January 2025 and made the mandatory pre-deposit.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a provisional bank account attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act automatically ceases to operate after one year, and what relief follows once the department issues a fresh attachment order.
  2. Whether the writ petition survives once the originally impugned attachment has lapsed by efflux of time and been replaced by a fresh order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The one-year validity period for the provisional attachment under Section 83 had expired, rendering the original DRC-22 letter dated 10.05.2024 inoperative; the petitioner had also already challenged the main demand by way of a statutory appeal with pre-deposit made.

Respondent's Arguments

  • A fresh DRC-22 had been issued to keep the attachment in effect, an assertion the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC placed on record before the Court.

Court Order / Findings

  • Given the department's confirmation that a fresh DRC-22 had been issued, the Court found the original petition, which was confined to the earlier lapsed attachment, had become infructuous.
  • It dismissed the petition as infructuous but granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the fresh DRC-22 separately if aggrieved.
  • Noting that the copy of the fresh DRC-22 had not been served on the petitioner, the Court directed that it be served within one week at specified contact details and also uploaded on the GST portal.

Important Clarification

  • A provisional attachment order under Section 83 of the CGST Act is time-bound — the statutory one-year cap on its validity means the department must issue a fresh order to continue any attachment, and a writ petition confined to the lapsed order becomes infructuous once a fresh order supersedes it.
  • Even while disposing of such a petition as infructuous, courts will ensure the taxpayer is not left without recourse — here by preserving liberty to challenge the fresh attachment and directing proper service of it, including upload on the GST portal.

Sections Involved

  • Section 83, CGST Act, 2017 – empowers provisional attachment of property (including bank accounts) to protect government revenue, subject to a maximum validity of one year from the date of the order.
  • Form GST DRC-22 – the prescribed form for communicating a provisional attachment order.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is disposed of with directions rather than a merits win for either side — the original challenge is rendered infructuous, but the petitioner retains liberty to separately challenge the fresh attachment, a qualified outcome in its favour on the procedural point.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. Case No.: W.P.(C) 8164/2025 & CM APPL. 35679/2025, 35680/2025. Coram: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta. Date of Order: 30 May 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.