Case Details: Bytedance (India) Technology Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 33 Centax 25 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- M.S. Sonak and Jitendra Jain, JJ.
-
S/Shri Sriram Sridharan, Adv., Shanmuga Dev and Ms. Aditi Jain for the Petitioner.
-
Ms. Maya Majumdar, Shri Sontrik Kar and Harshad Shinganpurkar, Adv. for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, a registered person under GST, filed the instant petition challenging the order of provisional attachment of its bank account issued under Section 83(2) of CGST Act. It was submitted that the period of one year from the date of issuance of the said provisional attachment order had already elapsed, and no further order of provisional attachment had been passed thereafter. On this basis, the Petitioner contended that the provisional attachment had ceased to have legal effect and sought formal quashing of the same. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that in terms of Section 83(2) of CGST Act, any order of provisional attachment issued under Section 83(1) ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of such order. As the period of one year had already lapsed and no fresh order had been passed, the impugned order was held to have ceased to operate. The Court accordingly directed that the provisional attachment be formally quashed and the bank be instructed to release or de-freeze the Petitioner’s bank account.
List Of Case Cited
- Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma v. Union of India — (2025) 32 Centax 209 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 6]
