🚨Landmark Case Alert Kerala High Court has held that No Fresh Provisional Attachment Once One-Year Period Ends! ⚖️Provisional Attachment under GST ceases after One year. The Additional Director General, DGGI, Kochi vs Ali K (WA NO. 63 OF 2025; dated 30-Jan-2025 :: 2025:KER:7595) Please save this post to help litigate cases of Department re-blocking Bank Accounts. 1️⃣ Facts of the Case & Timeline 📅 • The Assessee, engaged in the scrap business, was issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 on 04.05.2023. • The Department imposed a provisional attachment on the Assessee’s immovable properties and bank accounts. • The Assessee challenged the attachment before the Kerala High Court in WP(C) No.12519/2023, which was dismissed. • On appeal, the Division Bench in WA No.1250/2023 partially allowed the Assessee to operate two bank accounts while retaining attachment over others. • After one year, the Department re-issued a fresh order of provisional attachment under Section 83(1). • The Assessee again challenged this fresh attachment order, leading to the present writ appeal. 2️⃣ Issue 🎯 • Whether a fresh provisional attachment order can be issued after the expiry of the initial one-year period under Section 83(1) of the CGST Act, 2017? 3️⃣ Department’s Arguments 🏛️ • The re-attachment is necessary to protect government revenue. 4️⃣ Assessee’s Arguments ⚖️ • Provisional attachment ceases to operate after one year, as per Section 83(2). • Re-issuance of attachment is not permitted under the law. • Right to property under Article 300A is affected by arbitrary re-attachments. 5️⃣Court Judgment ⚖️ • Held that a fresh provisional attachment order under Section 83(1) cannot be issued on the same set of facts once the initial attachment expires after one year. • Parliament has not provided for renewal of attachment under Section 83. • Re-issuing attachment would amount to supplying words into the statute, which is impermissible in taxation law. • Doctrine of Eminent Domain applies, preventing arbitrary deprivation of property. • The appeal by the Department was dismissed.