A provisional attachment of your bank account under CGST Section 83 automatically ceases after one year from the date of the attachment order. That single fact is your strongest protection: the tax department cannot freeze your account under this power forever, and in many situations you do not have to wait the full year, because you can object and ask for the account to be released much sooner.
If your bank has told you the GST department has frozen your account, the first thing to know is that this is a temporary, tightly limited power, not a final recovery. Below is a fast way to find your route out, followed by exactly what the law does and does not allow.
Work through these branches in order and act on the first one that fits you.
Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is titled “Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases”. Its current wording was substituted by the Finance Act, 2021, and took effect on 1 January 2022. Sub-section (1) now reads:
“Where, after the initiation of any proceeding under Chapter XII, Chapter XIV or Chapter XV, the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in writing, attach provisionally, any property, including bank account, belonging to the taxable person or any person specified in sub-section (1A) of section 122, in such manner as may be prescribed.”
Read that carefully, because the limits are built into it:
Sub-section (2) fixes the outer limit in plain words: “Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order made under sub-section (1).” So the freeze is temporary by law. It dies at one year even if nobody lifts it, and it can be lifted much earlier.
The Supreme Court has read this power narrowly. In M/s Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, decided on 20 April 2021, the Court held that the power of provisional attachment under Section 83 is a draconian power that must be interpreted restrictively, and that its conditions must be strictly satisfied before it is used. The Court also held that Section 83 requires proceedings against the very taxable person whose property is attached, so attaching this person's account on the strength of proceedings against some other entity is beyond the section. On the facts of that case, the attachment was held to be without authority of law.
The machinery for attachment lives not in Section 83 but in Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, 2017, published by CBIC. Keep the three forms straight, because officers and taxpayers routinely mix them up:
One point matters a great deal, because a lot of older advice online is now wrong. The rule used to say an objection had to be filed “within seven days of the attachment”. That seven-day window was removed with effect from 1 January 2022. The current Rule 159(5) fixes no such seven-day deadline. File your objection in DRC-22A promptly, ask for your hearing, and check the current text of Rule 159 for the latest position before you rely on any day count you read elsewhere.
You are entitled to be heard before the Commissioner decides your objection. That right to a hearing, plus the one-year automatic lapse, plus the strict reading in Radha Krishan Industries, are the three levers that get most wrongful attachments lifted.
| What the Commissioner may do | What the Commissioner may not do |
|---|---|
| Attach property provisionally, but only after a proceeding under Chapter XII, XIV or XV has been initiated | Attach your account when no such proceeding has been initiated |
| Attach a bank account belonging to the taxable person, or a person specified in sub-section (1A) of section 122 | Attach an unconnected third party's property to reach another person's dues |
| Keep the attachment in force for up to one year from the date of the order | Keep it running past one year, since it ceases automatically at one year |
| Act only on a written opinion that attachment is necessary to protect revenue, recorded in Form GST DRC-22 | Freeze the account with no written DRC-22 order and no recorded reasons |
| Release the property, whole or part, by an order in Form GST DRC-23 | Ignore a DRC-22A objection without giving you an opportunity of being heard |
Under Section 83 sub-section (2), the attachment ceases to have effect after one year from the date of the order. That one-year lapse is automatic. It can also end sooner if the Commissioner releases the property by an order in Form GST DRC-23 after your objection.
No. The old “within seven days” wording in Rule 159 was removed with effect from 1 January 2022, so there is no fixed seven-day deadline in the current rule. You file your objection in Form GST DRC-22A. Still act quickly, and confirm the present text of Rule 159 before relying on any deadline you see quoted online.
Form GST DRC-22A. Do not confuse it with the others: DRC-22 is the attachment order the department passes, and DRC-23 is the order that releases your property. Your objection goes in DRC-22A.
Not under Section 83. In Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the section needs a proceeding against the very taxable person whose property is being attached. Attaching your account on the back of a case against a different entity is beyond the section.
You can ask the Commissioner in writing to release the account, or a specific part of it, so you can meet essential payments. The Commissioner may release property in whole or in part by an order in Form GST DRC-23, and you have the right to be heard on your objection first.
A provisional attachment feels like the end of the road, but it is a temporary measure with a hard one-year expiry, a written-order requirement, a right to object in DRC-22A, and a Supreme Court warning that the power must be used strictly. Get the DRC-22 order, check whether a real Chapter XII, XIV or XV proceeding exists, and file your objection with a request to be heard.
For a plain-language guide to using your legal and information rights against a government body, see The RTI Playbook. You may also find these related reads useful: how to push back on a wrongful seizure of your assets in vehicle repossession rights, and how a coercive order can be set aside in cancelling a non-bailable warrant.