Provisional Bank Attachment u/s 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory Period without Extension Order: Bombay HC orders to Defreeze Accounts [Read Order]
The Bombay High Court held strict compliance with statutory timelines under the Customs Act, granting relief to the assessee.
![Provisional Bank Attachment u/s 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory Period without Extension Order: Bombay HC orders to Defreeze Accounts [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/13/2132965-provisional-bank-attachmentjpg.webp "Provisional Bank Attachment u/s 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory Period without Extension Order: Bombay HC orders to Defreeze Accounts [Read Order]")
The Bombay High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 110(5) of the CustomsAct, 1962 cannot continue beyond the statutory period of six months in the absence of a valid extension order, thereby granting relief. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had provisionally attached the bank accounts of the petitioners on 8 July 2025 on account...
The Bombay High Court has held that provisional attachment of bank accounts under Section 110(5) of the CustomsAct, 1962 cannot continue beyond the statutory period of six months in the absence of a valid extension order, thereby granting relief.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had provisionally attached the bank accounts of the petitioners on 8 July 2025 on account of misdeclaration, undervaluation of imported luxurious furniture and customs duty avoidance.
However, provisional attachment was done for a duration of six months. Even though interim relief had been provided earlier allowing certain transactions, there was no proper extension of the provisional attachment even before the expiry of the six-month statutory period i.e., 7 January 2026.
The Petitioners Di Lusso Furniture LLP contended that according to Section 110(5) provisional attachment could last for six months and could be extended by another six months only by passing a proper order before the expiry of six months. Failure to extend would automatically lead to termination of the provisional attachment.
The Revenue Department contended that in view of the interim orders passed by the Court, attachment still existed and did not require any further extension.
The Court ruled that there could be no override of statutory provisions through judicial orders. It made clear that interim orders could not be interpreted as extending the period of provisional attachment beyond what was explicitly allowed under statute.
The Division Bench comprising Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe held that the provisional attachment orders automatically lapse after six months if not extended in accordance with the provision to Section 110(5).
Consequently, the impugned attachment orders were set aside and the petitioners were permitted to operate their bank accounts.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
