Identify which form actually changed the position
Notification 05/2026–Central Tax, dated 26 October 2026, amends rule 159 and Form GST DRC-22 with effect from 1 November 2026. Part A records the original attachment under Rule 159(1). Under amended Rule 159(5), the Commissioner may reject the objection in Part B if unsatisfied after giving the objector an opportunity to be heard, or release the property by Form GST DRC-23. DRC-22A remains the objection application. Part B does not itself release property or start a new one-year attachment period.
Read the applicable text: Gazette as published: Notification 05/2026–Central Tax, paragraphs 24 and 63 Official e-Gazette: CG-DL-E-27102026-277451 CGST Act, 2017: section 83 CBIC Notification 40/2021: DRC-22A and Rule 159.
Read the rejection against the application
Paragraphs 24 and 63 of the notification amend the rule and the form respectively. The notified Part B identifies the DRC-22A application ARN, the addressee and reasons; it provides for documents to be uploaded. Match the reference, GSTIN or other identifier, and stated reasons with the property and hearing records. Make an issue table with the applicant’s position, evidence tendered, finding and unresolved point. Obtain the full order and relied-on material where missing.
Keep legality, expiry and implementation separate
Under section 83(1), after initiation of proceedings under Chapter XII, XIV or XV, the Commissioner must form the opinion that attachment is necessary to protect government revenue. The written attachment must concern property, including a bank account, of the taxable person or a person specified in section 122(1A). Check the actual proceeding, ownership and evidence underlying the decision. Section 83(2) measures the one-year cessation period from the original attachment order. Track a Rule 159(5) or (6) release through the actual DRC-23 and the authority or bank’s implementation. Obtain bank-level confirmation if a hold remains after release or cessation. Review overlapping orders separately. A Part B rejection is not a determination of the underlying tax.
Preserve procedural and treasury evidence
Log service, objection, hearing opportunity, written submissions, rejection and any release. Preserve the precise reasons and any evidence the order appears to have overlooked. Escalate promptly for case-specific review of the remedy and applicable deadlines; do not assume a second objection restarts time or that rejection makes a particular appeal route automatic. For pre-November attachments with later action, check the procedural date and facts before applying the amended format. Treasury should reconcile the actual bank hold daily against the order and other restrictions.
Six worked illustrations
All facts and amounts are fictional. Calculations illustrate the stated assumptions, not a predetermined legal outcome.
Illustrative example 1: Liquidity under a continuing hold
An account shows ₹56 lakh and the bank confirms ₹35 lakh blocked under Part A. After Part B rejects the objection, ₹21 lakh remains available, assuming no other restriction.
Illustrative example 2: Multiple orders
The bank confirms separate, non-overlapping holds of ₹18 lakh and ₹7 lakh against ₹40 lakh cash. Even after a DRC-23 releases the ₹18 lakh and the bank implements it, available cash is ₹33 lakh, not ₹40 lakh.
Illustrative example 3: Part B does not reset the clock
Part A dated 10 November 2026 is followed by a rejection on 8 December 2026, 28 days later. Diarise the one-year anniversary, 10 November 2027, from the original order. Section 83(2) provides for cessation after expiry of the statutory period; confirm the exact cessation and the bank’s implementation separately.
Illustrative example 4: Objection with incomplete scope
An objection schedule documents a ₹12 lakh operating account but omits a separate ₹8 lakh deposit shown in the same original order. The evidence matrix has a ₹8 lakh coverage gap; it does not decide whether either asset was legally attachable.
Illustrative example 5: Order and bank records diverge
A DRC-23 release covers a ₹24 lakh hold. The bank has released ₹19 lakh so far. The implementation exception is ₹5 lakh; verify if another hold accounts for it.
Illustrative example 6: Operational prioritisation
With ₹46 lakh bank cash and a ₹29 lakh confirmed hold, ₹17 lakh is available. Against ₹14 lakh payroll and ₹8 lakh critical suppliers, the immediate cash gap is ₹5 lakh.
Ten-step verification table
| Step | Action | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Retrieve Part A | Signed order, property schedule and issue date. |
| 2 | Identify governing procedure | Record action dates and amendment commencement. |
| 3 | Match the DRC-22A | ARN, filer identity, asset scope and acknowledged enclosures. |
| 4 | Check hearing opportunity | Notice, service, minutes and actual submissions. |
| 5 | Read Part B reasons | Record the reason for each objection and supporting document. |
| 6 | Reconcile proceeding and party | Chapter, proceeding reference, taxpayer and asset ownership. |
| 7 | Verify amount blocked | Bank or registry statement by account or asset, with other holds separate. |
| 8 | Diarise statutory cessation | Use the Part A order date and track other independent orders. |
| 9 | Track any release | DRC-23, precise scope, service and bank confirmation. |
| 10 | Escalate unresolved points | Preserve dated service and a cash-impact working for review. |
Sixteen practitioner FAQs
1. Which form opens an attachment after the amendment?
Part A of DRC-22 is the attachment order under Rule 159(1).
2. What is Part B?
It is the rejection order for an objection under amended Rule 159(5).
3. Where is the objection filed?
The prescribed application remains DRC-22A.
4. Is a Part B rejection the same as tax assessment?
No. It concerns the provisional attachment objection.
5. Does it extend attachment by one year?
No. Section 83(2) refers to the original attachment order date.
6. Can I identify the application from Part B?
Match the recorded DRC-22A ARN to the acknowledged objection.
7. Is the opportunity to be heard relevant after the amendment?
Yes. The Rule 159(5) hearing safeguard remains.
8. What if a hearing notice went to an old address?
Preserve service and address records and obtain case-specific review.
9. Does the same identifier apply to every person?
The form differentiates a registered person's GSTIN and identifiers for others.
10. How do I test generic reasons?
Compare each reason with the asset evidence and submissions actually on record.
11. What proves a Rule 159 release?
Obtain the applicable DRC-23 and check the property it covers.
12. Will all accounts unblock after one release?
Only verify the released scope and identify any other operative orders.
13. Does the old seven-day Rule 159(5) wording still govern?
Notification 40/2021 removed the former seven-day wording when prescribing DRC-22A in rule 159(5). The 2026 amendment adds the rejection form; it does not reinstate that seven-day wording. File promptly and check any other applicable deadline separately.
14. What if Part A predates November 2026?
Identify when each procedural step occurred and assess the applicable format on the facts.
15. Should I use the ledger balance as available cash?
No. Use the bank-confirmed available balance and reconcile holds.
16. Does rejection establish the best remedy?
No. Review the nature of the order, evidence and deadlines before choosing a route.
Official sources
Gazette as published: Notification 05/2026–Central Tax, paragraphs 24 and 63 Official e-Gazette: CG-DL-E-27102026-277451 CGST Act, 2017: section 83 CBIC Notification 40/2021: DRC-22A and Rule 159