Bombay High Court’s ruling on provisional attachment of a Cash Credit Account under *Section 83 of the MGST Act*: 🧾 *Case Summary* * *Petitioner*: Taxpayer whose *cash credit account with ICICI Bank was provisionally attached under Section 83 of the Maharashtra GST Act* * *Respondent* : GST Department (Respondent No.1), who issued the attachment order. * *Court* : *Bombay High Court*, Division Bench of *Justices Jitendra Jain and M.S. Sonak*. ⚖️ *Key Legal Issue* > Can a **cash credit account** of a taxpayer be **considered “property”** under **Section 83** of the **MGST Act**, and hence be subject to **provisional attachment**? 🧠 *High Court’s Findings* 1. *Nature of Cash Credit Account*: It is not the property of the account holder. It is a loan account, where the *bank grants borrowing limits* to the taxpayer. Funds in the account are *borrowed money*, not the taxpayer’s own. 2. *Interpretation of Section 83 (MGST Act)*: Section 83 allows provisional attachment of *“any property, including bank account”* of the taxable person. * The phrase *“including bank account”* is *not meant to cover cash credit accounts*, which are *liabilities*, not assets. * The court ruled that *only operative bank accounts (containing taxpayer’s funds)* can be considered “property.” 3. *Judgment Outcome*: * The *attachment was quashed* *The department was directed to withdraw the letter sent to ICICI Bank, Malad (E), Mumbai. 📌 *Legal Precedent Set* * *Cash credit accounts cannot be treated as property* under *Section 83 of GST laws*. * This ensures that *loan facilities are not wrongly frozen, which would cripple a business's working capital*. Court: Bombay High Court, Division Bench (Justices M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain) Writ Petition No.: 1928 of 2025 Date of Order: 10 June 2025