Fresh GST Bank Attachment Without New Grounds Invalid

Case Details: Gujral Sons vs. Union of India [2026] 185 taxmann.com 871 (Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Nitin Wasudeo Sambre & Ajay Digpaul, JJ.
Nikhil Gupta, Rochit Abhishek, Prince Nagpal, Devang Dwivedi & Jiten Yadav, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Kshitij Chhabra, SPC, Madhav Anand, Shikhar Gupta, Shubham Mishra, Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Ankush Bhardwaj, Ms Anushka Mishra, Advs., Atul Tripathi, SSC, Santosh Kumar Rout, SC & Ashish Rawat, GP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner was subjected to provisional attachment of its bank accounts by issuance of Form GST DRC-22 under Section 83 of the CGST Act and the Delhi GST Act during proceedings under the said enactments. The initial attachment remained operative and, upon expiry of the statutory period, lapsed by efflux of time. Subsequently, even after the completion of assessment proceedings by the order-in-original and during the pendency of appellate proceedings, the jurisdictional authorities issued a fresh provisional attachment on the same set of facts without any new material or change in circumstances. The petitioner contended that the successive invocation was impermissible after the expiry of the earlier attachment and the completion of assessment. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that re-imposition of provisional attachment under Section 83 of the CGST Act and Delhi GST Act on an identical factual basis, after expiry of the earlier attachment by statutory efflux of time, was unsustainable. It was observed that once the assessment had concluded by order-in-original, any further exercise of power under Section 83 required fresh material or changed circumstances, which were absent in the present case. It was further held that failure to act within the validity period of the earlier attachment could not justify its revival in the absence of new grounds. Accordingly, the impugned attachment was held to be arbitrary and liable to be quashed, and relief was granted, including the defreezing of the petitioner’s bank accounts.