The appellant, Kesari Nandan Mobile, challenged before the Supreme Court the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dated 29 January 2025, which had dismissed its writ petition. The dispute arose from the respondent’s action of re-issuing provisional attachment orders dated 13 November 2024 and 18 December 2024 under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (“CGST Act”), even after the earlier attachments of October 2023 had lapsed upon completion of one year.

The appellant argued that the CGST Act does not permit renewal of provisional attachments after expiry of their statutory one-year life under Section 83(2). It contended that the respondent’s subsequent orders, purporting to “renew” the attachments, were without jurisdiction and violated the statutory limitation. The Gujarat High Court, however, had upheld the respondent’s action, holding that there was no legal bar to issuing fresh attachments for safeguarding revenue.

Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined Section 83 of the CGST Act and Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, noting the draconian nature of provisional attachment powers. The Court held that sub-section (2) of Section 83 clearly limits the life of such attachment to one year, and there is no statutory provision authorizing renewal or re-issuance. Permitting repeated or renewed attachments would render sub-section (2) nugatory and violate legislative intent.

The Court rejected the Gujarat High Court’s reasoning that absence of a specific prohibition allows fresh attachment. It emphasized that statutory authorities can only act within powers expressly conferred by law, and any act not authorized is ultra vires. The Court also took note of the GST Council’s recommendation to amend Rule 159 to align it with Section 83, recognizing the one-year limit on provisional attachment.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned attachment orders dated 13 November 2024 and 18 December 2024, and directed de-freezing of the appellant’s bank accounts. The Court clarified, however, that the revenue authorities may continue their investigation in accordance with law.