High Court relying upon decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal
Pradesh  6 Supreme Court Cases 771 held that order disposing the objections to provisional attachment of bank
account was not an appealable order and only remedy available was invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
The order for Provisional Attachment was made on 21st April 2022 and period of one year from the said date expired on 21st
April 2023. Therefore, provisional attachment order dated 21st April 22 ceased to have effect by operation of law and was
held not operative after 21st April 23.
Revenue sent a letter dated 19th April 2023 to the bankers with a copy marked to the Petitioner for continuation of attachment.
They stated that fresh order passed was noted on the order sheet. The High Court did not find any fresh order having being
passed to attach the bank account on 19th April 2023 and mere noting’s in the file of the concerned Officer was held to be
not to constitute an order without a formal order as the law may mandate being passed and most importantly such
order being communicated to the affected person, whose bank account is attached. Revenue failed to show firstly such
order being passed and secondly being served on the Petitioner. The High Court further observed that the revenue has also
not disputed that letter of 19th April 2023 was only a communication to the bank, to retain provisional attachment of the
account and thus, it can never be a fresh order under Section 83(1) provisionally attaching the Petitioner's bank
It was submitted by the Petitioner that Respondents do not have the jurisdiction to pass the provisional attachment order, since
the Petitioner was in Chennai and the bank account, in respect of which the provisional attachment order was communicated,
was also in Chennai. The High Court observed that Sub-section (1) of Section 83 empowers Commissioner to provisionally
attach any property, including bank account belonging of taxable person or "any person" specified in Section 122(1-A) and
Section 122(1-A), refers to "any person", who has retained benefit of a transaction and in whose presence, transaction is
conducted. It does not contemplate of a situation where the person should be located within the State in which the transaction is
carried out. Therefore, Respondents were held to have the jurisdiction to resort to the provisions of Section 83 of the
Act with respect to the Petitioner located in Chennai.
Cases Referred- Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh  6 Supreme Court Cases 771, Guru Nanak
Motor House v. Union of India 2021-TIOL-2017-HC-Mum-GST