^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

M/S. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND OTHERS
(Telangana High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
T.AMARNATH GOUD

Pet. Counsel

B.narsimha Sharma

Res. Counsel

Petitioner / Applicant	M/S. KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Respondent	PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND OTHERS
Court	Telangana High Court
State	Telangana
Date	Oct 20, 2020
Order No.	WP.No.18575 of 2020
Citation	2020(10) TAXREPLY 3433
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 83

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

AA |

ORDER
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 attaching the petitioner’s company’s current bank account bearing No.008010200005632 with the 5th respondent-Bank, even after expiry of the mandatory period of one year prescribed under Sub-Section(2) of Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017(for short ‘the Act’). 3. Counsel for the petitioners contends that continuation of such attachment is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M/s A.P. Steels and Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. Additional Director General, DGCI, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bengaluru 2020(8)....