` 134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA KVM Logic Softwares Pvt. Ltd. Union of India and others CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. (through video conferencing) Mr. ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the attachment order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that such cannot continue beyond a period of one year. Section 83(2) of the Act is relied upon, which reads as under: “ xx xx xx (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have eff after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub 2. Considering the fact that the period of one year has already expired, we called upon counsel for the revenue to obtain instructions. The matter was accordingly passed over in the first round. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14788 Date of Decision: KVM Logic Softwares Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Abhimanu, Advocate for the petitioner (through video conferencing) Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) This petition has been filed challenging the attachment order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that such cannot continue beyond a period of one year. Section 83(2) of the Act is relied upon, which reads as under:- “83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. xx xx xx (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have eff after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).” Considering the fact that the period of one year has already expired, we called upon counsel for the revenue to obtain instructions. The matter was ccordingly passed over in the first round. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 14788-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR , Advocate for the petitioner. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Panel Counsel for the respondents – UOI. (Oral) This petition has been filed challenging the attachment order issued under Section 83 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the ground that such attachment cannot continue beyond a period of one year. Section 83(2) of the Act is relied 83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases. (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have eff after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order Considering the fact that the period of one year has already expired, we called upon counsel for the revenue to obtain instructions. The matter was UOI. This petition has been filed challenging the attachment order issued attachment cannot continue beyond a period of one year. Section 83(2) of the Act is relied (2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order Considering the fact that the period of one year has already expired, we called upon counsel for the revenue to obtain instructions. The matter was RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 13:18 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-14788-2026 (O&M) [2] 3. When the matter is taken up in the revised call, learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the authorities concerned will immediately write to the bank for withdrawal of the attachment as the period of one year has expired. 4. In that view of the matter, we take the statement of counsel for the revenue on record and dispose of this writ petition with a direction upon the respondents to ensure that attachment of the accounts in question are revoked within a period of fortnight from today. 5. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) JUDGE 14.07.2026 rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.17 13:18 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.