1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 17 March, 2023 passed by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of GST Intelligence whereby the petitioner’s bank account with the Citibank NA, Mumbai Branch, being Current Account No. 713915009 has been provisionally attached under the provisions of Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 (for short “CGST Act”)

2. The case of the petitioner is that the impugned provisional attachment is bad and illegal, as Section 83 would not confer any power on the authority to have successive attachments, as in the present case, initially an order dated 18 March, 2021 was issued provisionally attaching the bank account of the petitioner; thereafter, again on 25 March, 2022, an order of provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account was issued and now the impugned attachment order dated 17 March, 2023 has been issued. The petitioner’s contention is to the effect that considering such successive provisional attachments orders, certainly the provisions of Section 83(2) stand defeated, which provides that every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).

3. Considering such contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner when the proceedings were before us on 26 October, 2023, we passed the following order:

“1. Leave to amend. Amendment to be carried out by tomorrow, i.e., 27 October, 2023, amended copy of the petition be served on the advocate for the respondents. Re-verification is dispensed with.

2. Stand over to 2 November, 2023 to enable Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the revenue to place on record reply affidavit. Let reply affidavit be served on the advocate for the petitioner one day in advance.

3. The question which would fall for consideration of this Court would be whether Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (for short “CGST Act”) would permit the revenue to issue successive orders of provisional attachment of the property of the assessee/petitioner after completion of one year, when there is no specific allowance as made by the provision itself.

4. In the meantime, there shall be status-quo in regard to the petitioner’s funds with the bank.”

4. The status quo as ordered by us in paragraph 4 of our order has continued to operate.

5. It is, however, seen that the petitioner had approached this Court on an earlier occasion assailing the provisional attachment dated 18 March, 2021 in proceedings of Writ Petition (L) No. 8555 of 2021. Such proceedings by consent of the parties were disposed of by an order dated 6 April, 2021. The relevant paragraphs of the said order reads thus:

“4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner would secure revenue’s concern of Rs.78.91 crores by depositing additional amount in attached/frozen bank accounts and the bank accounts to remain attached/frozen to the extent of Rs.78.91 crores and petitioner may be allowed to operate the bank accounts over and above the amount of Rs.78.91 crores over the concerns expressed by the petitioner.

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Jetly on instructions from the officers present in the court states that the revenue has no particular objection on aforesaid arrangement as long as the revenue interest is secured.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fixed deposit of the amount of Rs.78.91 crores may be considered. It may be in the interest of all to have the same in a nationalized bank. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent no. 2 for the same.

(emphasis supplied)"

6. It also appears to be not in dispute that in the intervening period a show cause-cum-demand notice dated 29 July, 2022 was issued to the petitioner. We are informed that final orders on such show cause notice are reserved. In these peculiar circumstances and considering the fact that the impugned provisional attachment order itself is dated 17 March, 2023 and this petition also being filed on 16 October, 2023, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice that the Adjudicating Authority passes a final order on the show cause notice.

7. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the revenue has stated that the orders on the show cause notice shall be passed by the Adjudicating Authority within a period of four weeks from today. We accept such statement as made by Mr. Mishra on behalf of the revenue.

8. In the above circumstances, keeping open all contentions of he petitioner in regard to the provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank account, we propose to dispose of this petition by continuing the ad-interim order passed by us in terms of paragraph 4 of the order dated 26 October, 2023. Accordingly, the petition would stand disposed of in terms of the following order:

"O R D E R

(i) The statement as made on behalf of the respondent/revenue that the show cause notice dated 29 July, 2022 issued to the petitioner shall be adjudicated by passing final order within four weeks from today is accepted.

(ii) Ad-interim order in terms of paragraph 4 of the order dated 26 October, 2023 shall continue to operate till final orders are passed on the show cause notice.

(iii) All contentions of the petitioner as raised in the present petition on the powers of the respondents to issue successive provisional attachment orders are expressly kept open."

9. Disposed of in the above terms. No costs.