Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.31 seconds)

M/S. Vardhman Exim vs Union Of India & Ors. on 23 December, 2021

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provisions of Section 83(2) of the CGST Act, 2017, the order of provisional attachment of bank account ceases to have effect after the expiry of one year from the date of issuance of the order. She states that though the order of provisional attachment dated 14th July, 2020 has ceased to have effect on 13th July, 2021 yet the Petitioner is still not allowed to operate its bank account which had been provisionally attached by the impugned order. She relies on the order dated 22nd November, 2021 of this Court in M/s. Shri Dhan Laxmi Trade House Vs. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax W.P.(C) 13080-2021 where under similar circumstances the Court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to de-freeze the current account of the Petitioner therein.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Manmohan - Full Document

M/S. Krishna Fashion vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 January, 2022

In support of her submissions, she relies upon the judgment of this Court in M/s. Shri Dhan Laxmi Trade House Vs. Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax, 2021 (11) TMI 863. She further states that the impugned order does not disclose the pendency of any proceeding under Sections 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74 of the GST Acts, which can justify the provisional attachment order.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Manmohan - Full Document
1