Armour-ing taxpayers: provisional attachment under Indian GST – part two

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Armour-ing taxpayers: provisional attachment under Indian GST – part two

Sponsored by

Logo JPG.jpg
Chittorgarh Fort, India

Sahana Rajkumar and R Amrith of Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan conclude their analysis by explaining how Supreme Court rulings shape the interpretation of ‘initiation of proceedings’ and safeguard against misuse of provisional attachment

Building on the discussion in part one, the attention now turns to the amendment to Section 83 of India’s Central Goods and Services Tax Act (the CGST Act) and the various questions that arise as a result. This article analyses the interpretation of the phrase “initiation of any proceedings”, which would determine the trigger point for invoking the power of attachment under Section 83, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) v Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate & Anr. (Armour Security).

Amendment to Section 83 of the CGST Act

Consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries v State of Himachal Pradesh (Radha Krishan), the central government amended Section 83 with effect from January 1 2022, through the Finance Act, 2021. The amendment introduced three significant changes:

  • It changed the language of the provision from “during the pendency of proceedings” to “after the initiation of any proceeding”;

  • It expanded the scope of attachment to include proceedings under the relevant chapters of the CGST Act, rather than limiting it to specific sections, as was the case prior to the amendment; and

  • It provided for the attachment of properties belonging to persons other than the taxable person, such as beneficiaries of fraudulent transactions.

The amendments raise several questions. This article limits itself to one aspect, i.e., the impact of the phrase “initiation of any proceeding”.

Does the substitution of “pendency of proceedings” with “initiation of any proceeding” permit tax authorities to attach properties after the mere issuance of summons or an intimation to inspect premises, without a show cause notice (SCN) being issued or an opinion being formed as to the nature of the contravention? Can tax authorities attach properties even before arriving at a conclusion regarding the exact nature of the allegation or the quantum of the demand against the assessee?

Despite the language of Section 83 undergoing an amendment, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan are still valid, in as much as the power of provisional attachment continues to be “draconian in nature”.

This power must be exercised with care and caution, and only after the tax authorities frame the exact allegations against the assessees. This view is buttressed by Central Board of Excise and Customs Instruction No. 20/16/05/2021-GST dated February 23 2021, which clarified that because the remedy of attachment under Section 83 is extraordinary in nature, due diligence must be exercised, and it must not be resorted to in a routine/mechanical manner.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile v Office of Assistant Commissioner (2025) reaffirmed the principles laid down in Radha Krishan and reiterated the “draconian” nature of provisional attachment and the need for strict compliance with the statutory language.

Importing Armour Security into Section 83

From the above discussion, it is obvious that, historically, provisional attachment has been understood to be a punitive provision, the power of which has to be exercised by the Department of Revenue based on tangible material and with circumspection. Merely because the provision uses the term “initiation of any proceeding”, it does not necessarily imply that the tax authorities have been given a carte blanche power to attach properties without proper ‘formation of mind’.

Against this background, it is apposite to refer to the law laid down in Armour Security regarding the term “initiation of any proceeding” and apply it in the context of Section 83. In so far as the phraseology is concerned, Section 6(2)(b) and Section 83 refer to the initiation of proceedings, albeit in different contexts.

In Armour Security, the Supreme Court ruled that formal proceedings are only initiated after the tax authorities ‘form their mind’ regarding the exact allegations against the assessee and commence formal adjudication proceedings by way of the issuance of an SCN. The court specifically noted that an SCN marks the commencement of a process that culminates in an order passed by the adjudicating authority and certainty of the subject matter arises only at the stage of issuance of the SCN.

To this extent, the law laid down in Armour Security, in so far as it defines ‘initiation of proceedings’, is applicable for attachment envisaged under Section 83. It can be contended that “initiation of any proceeding” under Section 83 would necessarily imply ‘forming of mind’ by the tax authorities and the subsequent issuance of an SCN to the assessee. This interpretation balances the Department of Revenue’s interests and taxpayers’ rights.

Concluding remarks

Considering the above, if the Department of Revenue initiates attachment proceedings before the framing of a SCN, it could very well be argued that the actions of the department are at odds with the understanding of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Armour Security. It is vital for concerned parties to remain aware of these developments and adopt appropriate and timely legal remedies when confronted with such circumstances.

The views expressed in this article are entirely personal.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

In the age of borderless commerce, money flows faster than regulation. While digital platforms cross oceans in milliseconds, tax authorities often lag. Indonesia has decided it can wait no longer
The tariffs are disrupting global supply chains and creating a lot of uncertainty, tax expert Miguel Medeiros told ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum
Corporate counsel should combine deep technical knowledge with strategic dynamism, says Agarwal, winner of ITR’s EMEA In-house Indirect Tax Leader of the Year award
Luxembourg’s reform agenda continues at pace in 2025, with targeted measures for start-ups and alternative investment funds
Veteran Elizabeth Arrendale will lead the new advisory practice, which will support clients with M&A tax structuring, post-deal integration, and more
MAP cases keep increasing, and cases closed aren’t keeping pace with the number started, the OECD’s Sriram Govind also told an ITR summit
Nobody likes paperwork or paying money, but the assertion that legal accreditation doesn’t offer value to firms and clients alike is false
Ryan hopes the buyout will help it expand into Asia and the Middle East; in other news, three German finance ministers have called for a suspension of pillar two
SKAT, which was represented by Pinsent Masons, had accused Sanjay Shah and other defendants of fraudulent dividend tax refund claims
TP managers must be able to explain technical issues in simple terms, ITR’s European Transfer Pricing Forum heard
Gift this article