KESARI NANDAN MOBILE versus OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX (2), ENFORCEMENT DIVISION – 5

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 14-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 936 : 2025 INSC 983
Kesari Nandan Mobile 
v. 
Office of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (2), 
Enforcement Division – 5
(Civil Appeal No. 9543 of 2025)
14 August 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 
or any other law in force permits issuance of a second provisional 
attachment order u/s.83(1) of the Act after the initial provisional 
attachment order issued thereunder ceases, by reason of efflux of a 
year from the date of its issuance, in terms of sub-section (2) thereof.
Headnotes†
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 – s.83 – Central Goods 
and Services Tax Rules, 2017 – r.159(5) – Provisional attachment 
to protect revenue in certain cases – Provisional attachment 
orders issued against the appellant-taxpayer – Attachment 
orders lapsed upon expiry of a year – Respondent-revenue 
issued fresh provisional attachment orders terming it as a 
‘renewal’ of the earlier orders – Writ petition by the appellant 
that the subsequent provisional attachment orders be quashed 
and the attachment lifted to enable the appellant operate its bank 
accounts – High Court dismissed the writ petition – Correctness: 
Held: Any order of provisional attachment, issued under subsection (1) 
of s.83, would cease to have any effect after a period of a year – 
Respondent could not have issued the impugned provisional 
attachment orders upon the previous ones having ceased to have any 
effect by operation of law after a year of its issuance – When a statute 
does not provide for an extension, renewal, re-issuance, revival, 
whatever be the nomenclature, the executive cannot overreach the 
statute to do so – Parliament, being cognizant of other taxing statutes, 
deliberately chose not to incorporate an extension provision in the 
section, also carries considerable merit – Not to speak of a statutory 
conferment of power, there is a complete absence of any executive 
instruction consistent with the legislative policy and intendment of the 
CGST Act authorizing renewal of a lapsed provisional attachment 
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
937
Kesari Nandan Mobile v. Office of Assistant Commissioner of 
State Tax (2), Enforcement Division – 5
order  – Issuance of the provisional attachment orders by the 
respondent appears to be indefensible – Conceding power to the 
revenue to issue a fresh provisional order of attachment after the 
initial order has lapsed by operation of law or to renew the same 
would render the text of sub-section (2) of s.83 otiose and accepting 
the reason assigned by the High Court would permit the revenue 
to exercise a power which is not the statutory intendment – Thus, 
no reason to read s.83 in a manner to confer any additional power 
over and above the draconian power conferred by sub-section (1) 
and upon lapse as ordained by sub-section (2) – Fresh issuance of 
a provisional attachment order premised on substantially the same 
grounds as the earlier one would be in disregard to the safeguard 
provided in sub-section (2) – Repeated or continuous issuance of 
a provisional attachment order under the garb of ‘renewal’ could 
lead to a serious anomaly – Besides, a reading of the statute in its 
entirety would reveal that the provisional attachment is a pre-emptive 
measure to protect the interests of government revenue – It cannot 
function as a recovery measure – Bank accounts attached by the 
respondent stand de-freezed and be made operable forthwith. 
[Paras 19, 29-32, 38-41]
Maxim – ut res magis valeat quam pereat – Meaning – Is an 
interpretive doctrine that a legal text, specially a statute, should 
be interpreted in a way that gives the document force rather 
than makes it fail. [Para 30]
Case Law Cited
RHC Global Exports Private Limited & Ors. v. Union of India & 
Ors., IA No. 249406 of 2023 in SLP (C) No(s). 15992-15994 of 
2023 – relied on.
Additional Director General & Anr. v. Ali K. & Ors., 2025 SCC 
OnLine Ker 758 – approved.
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2021] 3 
SCR 406 : (2021) 6 SCC 771; State of Odisha v. Satish Kumar 
Ishwardas Gajbhiye (2021) 17 SCC 90; Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya 
Kapur v. State of Punjab [1955] 2 SCR 225 : AIR 1955 SC 549; 
Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 1 SCR 192 : (1985) 
2 SCC 197; Pt. Banarsi Das Bhanot v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
[1959] 1 SCR 427 : AIR 1958 SC 909; Sant Ram Sharma v. State 
of Rajasthan [1968] 1 SCR 111 : 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.