9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 1000X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner Advocate: S.R. R. Viswanath Respondent Advocate: GP For Commercial Tax TG O R D E R: Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.Narsimha Sharma, Senior Counsel for Central Taxes appearing for respondents 1 to 4. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the continuation of provisional attachment vide order C.No.HQAE/V/227/2019- HYD-GST-AE dt.07.06.2019 passed by the 2nd respondent attac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount of a party cannot continue beyond a period of one year prescribed under sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the Act and it directed the respondents to defreeze the petitioner's bank account within a certain period of time fixed therein. 5. Similar view has been expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Namaskar Enterprise v. Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax 2020(8) TMI 333(in R/Spl. Civil Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... existence after 06.06.2020, i.e., after the expiry of one year from 07.06.2019, contrary to sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the Act. The fact that the said attachment cannot continue in view of the sunset clause in sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the Act beyond a period of one year from 07.06.2019, is not in dispute. 8. Therefore, the impugned provisional attachment order dt.07.06.2019 is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
