Nivara Infradevelopers Llp vs Union Of India
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Case type
- WPL
- Decided on
- 02-04-2026
<div> Digitally<br /> signed by<br /> PRASHANT<br /> VILAS<br /> RANE<br /> Date:<br /> 2026.04.09<br /> 21:38:17<br /> +0530<br /> <b>2026:BHC-OS:9038-DB</b><br /> 1 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> PRASHANT<br /> VILAS<br /> RANE<br /> IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY<br /> <br /> ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION<br /> WRIT PETITION (L) NO.7888 OF 2026<br /> Nivara Infradevelopers LLP, through<br /> Designated Partner Mr.Nilesh Patil,<br /> CTS No.185, 185/1 to 8, Jalmeena CHS, <br /> Tejpal Scheme, Road No.5 Junction, <br /> Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057. Petitioner<br /> versus<br /> 1. The Union of India,<br /> 2. The State of Maharashtra,<br /> 3. The Commissioner of State Tax <br /> 8th Floor, GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, <br /> Mumbai - 400017. <br /> 4. Joint Commissioner of State Tax, <br /> Investigation - A, C- Wing, 2nd Floor, <br /> Old Building, GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, <br /> Mumbai - 400017. <br /> 5. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax <br /> (MUM-INV-D-1013), 2nd Floor, Cabin No.B-4, <br /> Old Buildinng, GST Bhavan, <br /> Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. Respondents<br /> _______<br /> Mr.Ishaan V.Patkar with Mr.Vinit V.Raje, Mr.Sanskar R.Ahire i/by Alaksha Legal <br /> for Petitioner.<br /> Mr.Amar Mishra, AGP, for Respondent nos.2, 3 4 and 5.<br /> _______<br /> CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &<br /> AARTI SATHE , JJ.<br /> nd<br /> DATE: 2 April 2026<br /> ORAL JUDGMENT – (G.S.Kulkarni, J.) :-<br /> 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed <br /> praying for the following substantive reliefs :<br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 2 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> (c) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other <br /> writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the Impugned Orders dated 23 <br /> January 2026 being Exhibits A and B to this Petition;<br /> <br /> (d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, the Hon'ble <br /> Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned Orders dated 23 <br /> January 2026 being Exhibits A and B to this Petition and consequently direct the <br /> Respondent No.4 to forthwith withdraw the attachment of the bank accounts.”<br /> 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is primarily against the impugned orders <br /> rd<br /> of attachment dated 23 January 2026 (Exhibits A and B respectively). The <br /> impugned orders are intimation to the Petitioner’s bankers namely Punjab <br /> National Bank, Mumbai and Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited, Mumbai <br /> attaching the bank accounts of the Petitioner. One of such intimation issued to <br /> Punjab National Bank is extracted below :<br /> “Government of Maharashtra <br /> Department of Goods and Service Tax<br /> Office of The, <br /> Joint Commissioner of State Tax, . <br /> Investigation-A, <br /> C-Wlng, 2nd Floor, Old Building,, GST Bhavan, Mazgaon, <br /> Mumbai-400010<br /> No/JCST/lNV-A/ M/s. Nivara Infradevelopers LLP /DRC-22/2025-26/E-118 <br /> Mumbai Dated 23-01-2026<br /> “FORM GST DRC- 22" <br /> (See rule 159[1])<br /> To, <br /> The Manager, <br /> Punjab National Bank, <br /> Samartha Mandir, Bhalerao Wadi, Hanuman Road, <br /> Vileparle East, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400057. <br /> IFSC: PUNB0373600 <br /> Account No: 3736002101019575<br /> Provisional attachment of Bank Account under section 83 <br /> It is to inform that M/s. Nivara lnfradevelopers LLP (GSTIN-<br /> 27AAKFN9501B1ZF) having principal place of business at CTS No.185 185/1 to <br /> 8 , Jalmeena Chs , Tejpal Scheme, Road No.5 Junction , Vile Parle East , Mumbai <br /> Suburban, Maharashtra-400057 bearing registration number as <br /> 27AAKFN9501B1ZF, PAN AAKFN9501B is a registered taxable person under <br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 3 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> the MGST/CGST Act.2017. Mr. Prasad Shantaram Patil and Mr. Nilesh <br /> Shantaram Patil are the partners of M/s. Nivara lnfradevelopers LLP. Proceedings <br /> have been launched against the aforesaid taxable person under section 67(2) of the <br /> said Act to determine the tax or any other amount due from the said person. As <br /> per information available with the department, it has come to my notice that the <br /> said person has account in your bank having account no.3736002101019575. <br /> <br /> In order to protect the interests of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred <br /> under section 83 of the Act, I Prerna Deshbhratar (IAS), Joint Commissioner of <br /> State Tax, Investigation-A, hereby provisionally attach the aforesaid account.<br /> No debit shall be allowed to be made from the said account or any other account <br /> operated by the aforesaid person on the same PAI\: without the prior permission of <br /> this department. <br /> Prerna Deshbhratar (IAS] <br /> Joint Commissioner of State Tax, <br /> lnvestigation-A, Mumbai.<br /> 1) Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Inv-A (E-0101)<br /> 2) Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Inv-A, (D-0103) <br /> 3) M/s. Nivara lnfradevelopers LLP.”<br /> rd<br /> 3. It appears from the record that on the even date, i.e. on 23 January <br /> 2026, the Petitioner was issued a pre-attachment communication in DRC-23, <br /> however, on the very same day, the impugned attachment notices to the Petitioner’s <br /> bankers, as extracted hereinabove, came to be issued.<br /> 4. It is Petitioner’s contention that on a plain reading of the impugned <br /> rd<br /> notice, as also the pre-intimation to the attachment, which is dated 23 January <br /> 2026, it is clear that basic principles of law are not followed, inasmuch as, apart <br /> from the impugned attachment, the pre-intimation does not disclose any opinion <br /> being formed and in respect of the period in regard to which tax is being <br /> demanded, as set out in a statement appearing at page 2 of the pre-intimation <br /> rd<br /> notice dated 23 January 2026. It is the Petitioner’s contention that any action of <br /> provisional attachment without any opinion being formed, needs to be regarded as <br /> illegal, as attaching the Petitioner’s bank accounts itself is a draconian action and <br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 4 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> for which necessarily an opinion is required to be formed on the basis of tangible <br /> <br /> material as per the settled principles of law. In support of such contention, <br /> Mr.Patkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner, has placed reliance on the decision of <br /> 1<br /> Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , in <br /> which the Supreme Court in the context of Section 83 of Himachal Pradesh Goods <br /> and Services Tax Act, 2017 has held that the power to levy a provisional <br /> attachment is draconian in nature, as by the exercise of the power, a property <br /> belonging to the taxable person can be attached, including a bank account. It is <br /> held that the language of the statute indicates first, the necessity of the formation of <br /> an opinion by the Commissioner; second, the formation of opinion before ordering <br /> a provisional attachment; thirdly the existence of opinion that it is necessary so to <br /> do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the Government revenue; fourthly, <br /> the issuance of an order in writing for the attachment of any property of the taxable <br /> person; and fifthly, the observance by the Commissioner of the provisions <br /> contained in the rules in regard to the manner of attachment. It is submitted that <br /> in the present case neither the mandatory procedure is followed nor any opinion is <br /> formed, as is clear from the contents of the pre-intimation as well as the attachment <br /> notice. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan <br /> Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) are extracted below :<br /> “48. On the other hand, when the proper officer is of the opinion that the amount <br /> which has been paid under sub-section (5) falls short of the amount which is <br /> actually payable, a notice under subsection (1) is to issue for the amount which <br /> falls short of what is actually payable. Sub-section (8) contains a stipulation that <br /> where a person who is chargeable with tax under sub-section (1) pays the tax <br /> together with interest and a penalty of twenty-five per cent of the tax within thirty <br /> days of the issuance of the notice, all proceedings in respect of the notice shall be <br /> <b>1</b> (2021)6-SCC-771<br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 5 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> deemed to be concluded. Under subsection (9), the proper officer after considering <br /> the representation of the person chargeable to tax is authorised to determine the <br /> amount of tax, interest and penalty due and to issue an order. A period of five <br /> years is stipulated by sub-section (10) for the issuance of an order in sub-section <br /> (9). Sub-section (11) stipulates that upon service of an order under sub-section (9), <br /> all proceedings in respect of the notice shall be deemed to be concluded upon the <br /> person paying the tax with interest under Section 50 and a penalty equivalent to <br /> 50 per cent of the tax within thirty days of the communication of an order. These <br /> provisions indicate how sub-sections (5), (8) and (11) operate at different stages of <br /> the process.<br /> <br /> 49. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to emphasise that before the <br /> Commissioner can levy a provisional attachment, there must be a formation of <br /> "the opinion" and that it is necessary "so to do" for the purpose of protecting the <br /> interest of the government revenue. The power to levy a provisional attachment is <br /> draconian in nature. By the exercise of the power, a property belonging to the <br /> taxable person may be attached, including a bank account. The attachment is <br /> provisional and the statute has contemplated an attachment during the pendency <br /> of the proceedings under the stipulated statutory provisions noticed earlier. An <br /> attachment which is contemplated in Section 83 is, in other words, at a stage which <br /> is anterior to the finalisation of an assessment or the raising of a demand. <br /> Conscious as the legislature was of the draconian nature of the power and the <br /> serious consequences which emanate from the attachment of any property <br /> including a bank account of the taxable person, it conditioned the exercise of the <br /> power by employing specific statutory language which conditions the exercise of <br /> the power. The language of the statute indicates first, the necessity of the <br /> formation of opinion by the Commissioner; second, the formation of opinion <br /> before ordering a provisional attachment; third the existence of opinion that it is <br /> necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government <br /> revenue; fourth, the issuance of an order in writing for the attachment of any <br /> property of the taxable person; and fifth, the observance by the Commissioner of <br /> the provisions contained in the rules in regard to the manner of attachment. Each <br /> of these components of the statute are integral to a valid exercise of power. In other <br /> words, when the exercise of the power is challenged, the validity of its exercise will <br /> depend on a strict and punctilious observance of the statutory preconditions by <br /> the Commissioner. While conditioning the exercise of the power on the formation <br /> of an opinion by the Commissioner that "for the purpose of protecting the interest <br /> of the government revenue, it is necessary so to do", it is evident that the statute <br /> has not left the formation of opinion to an unguided subjective discretion of the <br /> Commissioner. The formation of the opinion must bear a proximate and live <br /> nexus to the purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue.<br /> 50. By utilising the expression "it is necessary so to do" the legislature has evinced <br /> an intent that an attachment is authorised not merely because it is expedient to do <br /> so (or profitable or practicable for the Revenue to do so) but because it is necessary <br /> to do so in order to protect interest of the government revenue. Necessity <br /> postulates that the interest of the Revenue can be protected only by a provisional <br /> attachment without which the interest of the Revenue would stand defeated. <br /> Necessity in other words postulates a more stringent requirement than a mere <br /> expediency. A provisional attachment under Section 83 is contemplated during the <br /> pendency of certain proceedings, meaning thereby that a final demand or liability <br /> is yet to be crystallised. An anticipatory attachment of this nature must strictly <br /> conform to the requirements, both substantive and procedural, embodied in the <br /> statute and the rules. The exercise of unguided discretion cannot be permissible <br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 6 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> because it will leave citizens and their legitimate business activities to the peril of <br /> arbitrary power. Each of these ingredients must be strictly applied before a <br /> provisional attachment on the property of an assessee can be levied. The <br /> Commissioner must be alive to the fact that such provisions are not intended to <br /> authorise Commissioners to make pre-emptive strikes on the property of the <br /> assessee, merely because property is available for being attached. There must be a <br /> valid formation of the opinion that a provisional attachment is necessary for the <br /> purpose of protecting the interest of the government revenue.<br /> <br /> 51. These expressions in regard to both the purpose and necessity of provisional <br /> attachment implicate the doctrine of proportionality. Proportionality mandates the <br /> existence of a proximate or live link between the need for the attachment and the <br /> purpose which it is intended to secure. It also postulates the maintenance of a <br /> proportion between the nature and extent of the attachment and the purpose <br /> which is sought to be served by ordering it. Moreover, the words embodied in sub-<br /> section (1) of Section 83, as interpreted above, would leave no manner of doubt <br /> that while ordering a provisional attachment the Commissioner must in the <br /> formation of the opinion act on the basis of tangible material on the basis of which <br /> the formation of opinion is based in regard to the existence of the statutory <br /> requirement. While dealing with a similar provision contained in Section 45 of the <br /> Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003, one of us (Hon'ble M.R. Shah, J.) speaking <br /> for a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Vishwanath Realtor v. State of <br /> Gujarat observed : (Vishwanath Realtor case, SCC OnLine Guj para 26)<br /> "26. Section 45 of the VAT Act confers powers upon the <br /> Commissioner to pass the order of provisional attachment of any <br /> property belonging to the dealer during the pendency of any <br /> proceedings of assessment or reassessment of turnover escaping <br /> assessment. However, the order of provisional attachment can be <br /> passed by the Commissioner when the Commissioner is of the <br /> opinion that for ne purpose of protecting the interest of the <br /> Government Revenue, it is necessary so to do. Therefore, before <br /> passing the order of provisional attachment, there must be an <br /> opinion formed by the Commissioner that for the purpose of <br /> protecting the interest of the Government Revenue during the <br /> pendency of any proceedings of assessment or reassessment, it is <br /> necessary to attach provisionally any property belonging to the <br /> dealer. However, such satisfaction must be on some tangible <br /> material on objective facts with the Commissioner. In a given case, <br /> on the basis of the past conduct of the dealer and on the basis of <br /> some reliable information that the dealer is likely to defeat the <br /> claim of the Revenue in case any order is passed against the dealer <br /> under the VAT Act and/or the dealer is likely to sale his properties <br /> and/or sale and/or dispose of the properties and in case after the <br /> conclusion of the assessment/reassessment proceedings, if there is <br /> any tax liability, the Revenue may not be in a position to recover <br /> the amount thereafter, in such a case only, however, on formation of <br /> subjective satisfaction/opinion, the Commissioner may exercise the <br /> powers under Section 45 of the VAT Act." (emphasis supplied)<br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 7 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> 5. Mr.Patkar has also placed reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate <br /> <br /> Bench of this Court in which one of us (G.S.Kulkarni, J.) was a member, in <br /> 2<br /> Chokshi Arvind Jewellers Vs. Union of India and others , in which although the <br /> Court was concerned with provisional attachment under the Customs Act, 1962 <br /> i.e. Section 110 of the Customs Act, following the principles as laid down by the <br /> Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) <br /> in the context of a challenge to the provisional attachment, the Court held that, <br /> before the provisional attachment of the bank account, the proper authority had <br /> not passed any order in writing which fulfilled the requirements of section 110(5) <br /> of the Act, as the designated officer had not formed any opinion on the basis of <br /> any tangible material and in these circumstances the attachment was found to be <br /> bad and illegal. The relevant observations in that regard are necessary to be <br /> extracted, which read thus :<br /> “38. Further, the order in writing directing provisional attachment of the bank <br /> accounts must reflect as to why the proper officer is of the opinion that it is <br /> necessary to provisionally attach the bank account for the purpose of protecting <br /> the interest of revenue or preventing smuggling. These reasons must be set out in <br /> the order in writing. Further, the said order in writing must also disclose the <br /> tangible material on the basis of which the proper officer has formed such an <br /> opinion.<br /> 39. The power exercised by the proper officer in directing provisional attachment <br /> of the bank account of a person is quite drastic or coercive in nature resulting in <br /> attracting civil consequences. If a bank account of a person is attached, it would <br /> certainly cause severe prejudice to that person. The Legislature, whilst enacting the <br /> provisions of section 110(5) of the Act was conscious of the severity of such power <br /> and the serious consequences which would emanate from the provisional <br /> attachment of any property, including a bank account, of a taxable person, and, <br /> therefore, it conditioned the exercise of the power by employing specific statutory <br /> language of an approval to be sought by the proper officer from the Principal <br /> Commissioner or Commissioner, who is a high ranking officer. Thus, such power <br /> is not left to the ipse dixit of the proper officer and any such decision is required to <br /> undergo a rigorous scrutiny of the Principal Commissioner or the Commissioner. <br /> Each of these components of section 110(5) are integral to a valid exercise of <br /> power. In other words, when the exercise of power is challenged, the validity of its <br /> <b>2</b> (2024) 134 GSTR 494 (Bom)<br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 8 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> exercise will depend on a strict and punctilious observance of the statutory <br /> preconditions by the Principal Commissioner of the Commissioner. While <br /> conditioning the exercise of power on the formation of an opinion of the Principal <br /> Commissioner/Commissioner that, "for the purpose of protecting the interest of <br /> revenue or preventing smuggling it is necessary so to do", it is evident that the <br /> statute has not left formation of the opinion to an unguided subjective discretion <br /> of the proper officer or for that matter the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner. <br /> The formation of the opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to the purpose <br /> of protecting the interest of Government Revenue and/or preventing smuggling.<br /> <br /> 40. Further, such provisional attachment is contemplated during the pendency of <br /> certain proceedings, meaning thereby that a final demand or liability is yet to be <br /> crystallised. Therefore, an anticipatory attachment of this nature must strictly <br /> conform to the requirements, both substantive and procedural, embodied in the <br /> statute. The exercise of unguided discretion would not be permissible because it <br /> would leave persons and their legitimate business activities to the peril of arbitrary <br /> power.<br /> 41. Each of the ingredients of section 110(5) must be strictly complied with before <br /> the provisional attachment on the property of an assessee can be levied. The proper <br /> officer must be alive to the fact that such provisions are not intended to make <br /> preemptive strikes on the property of the assessee, merely because such property is <br /> available for being attached.<br /> 45. In the present case, before provisionally attaching the bank accounts of <br /> petitioners, the proper officer has not passed any order in writing which fulfils the <br /> requirements of section 110(5) of the Act. No such order in writing has been <br /> placed on record before us by the respondents. In fact, in paragraph 11 of its <br /> affidavit in reply, respondent No. 3, quite surprisingly, contended that, as per the <br /> provisions of section 110(5) of the Act, no written order for provisional attachment <br /> of a bank account is required to be passed. The relevant part of paragraph 11 of the <br /> affidavit in reply of respondent No. 3 reads as under:<br /> "As per the provision of the section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, <br /> no written order for provisional attachment of a bank account is <br /> required to be passed and the letter issued to the bank for provisional <br /> attachment is deemed to be an order which issued with the approval of <br /> the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of <br /> Customs."<br /> (emphasis supplied) <br /> 6. Mr. Patkar has also submitted that the impugned attachment order, in <br /> fact, is required to be held to be high handed, arbitrary and based on extraneous <br /> considerations. He has made this submission on two grounds. Firstly, without <br /> following the due procedure known in law, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax <br /> has erroneously issued the impugned order by completely bypassing the procedure. <br /> th<br /> The second contention is that on 30 January 2026 the Petitioner addressed a <br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 9 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> detailed objection responding to the impugned provisional attachment and also <br /> <br /> offering alternate security. In such communication, the requirements of law, as laid <br /> down by the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal <br /> Pradesh (supra), were pointed out. However, the same was not taken into <br /> consideration and the provisional attachment continued to operate. He submitted <br /> that there was no alternative for the Petitioner but to approach this Court.<br /> 7. It is his submission that thus, the tax payers are pushed to approach this <br /> Court due to such high handed actions of the authorities. He submitted that hence <br /> this is a fit case for imposing cost on the concerned officer, as such officer had <br /> acted in complete contravention of the procedure of law, as also the settled <br /> principles of provisional attachment, as laid down by the Supreme Court.<br /> 8. Insofar as the facts of the present case are concerned, learned AGP also <br /> is not in a position to urge anything more than what has been reflected in the <br /> impugned communications provisionally attaching Petitioner’s bank accounts.<br /> 9. We also find that there is absolute vagueness even in the pre-intimation <br /> notice which was also issued on the very day the impugned attachment order was <br /> issued. Thus, the mandate and requirement of law has ben given a complete go by <br /> in regard to such coercive action of ordering attachment of Petitioner’s bank <br /> accounts. The requirements of Section 83 of the Act itself have been conveniently <br /> overlooked. Hence, following the principles of law as laid down in the Radha <br /> Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (supra) and Chokshi Arvind <br /> Jewellers Vs. Union of India and others, we are of the opinion that the impugned <br /> attachment is required to be interfered as the impugned action of the designated <br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 10 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> officer has seriously breached the civil rights of the Petitioner without following the <br /> <br /> due procedure of law, as discussed hereinabove.<br /> 10. We are thus in complete agreement with Mr.Patkar as we find that <br /> certainly the impugned actions are in violation of the law and an apparent abuse of <br /> the powers which are vested with the authorities under the provisions of the Act. It <br /> is well settled that when such power to take drastic action is conferred on the <br /> authorities, it is coupled with an onerous duty to adhere to the provisions of law <br /> and the procedure so established. There cannot be a conscious departure from such <br /> mandatory requirements of law. Any action on the part of the officers who are <br /> supposed to act within the framework of law, cannot be taken in a high handed <br /> manner and/or for extraneous considerations, as rightly contended by Mr.Patkar. It <br /> is the rule of law which is taken to the ransom by such officials when they <br /> knowingly breach the law, that too with impunity.<br /> 11. Mr.Patkar would also submit that such officers, who abuse the powers as <br /> conferred on them easily get away, in the event the orders passed by such officers <br /> are simplicitor set aside, there is no deterrent, so that such high handed and <br /> arbitrary actions are not repeated in future. We find ourselves in agreement with <br /> Mr.Patkar. It is difficult to believe that the officers who are vested with such <br /> draconian powers are not aware as to how the same is required to be exercised as <br /> the law would mandate. Moreover, such officers cannot be permitted to openly <br /> defeat the provisions of law and the law as declared by the Supreme Court (supra). <br /> In our opinion, in the event, the concerned officials are to adhere to the basic <br /> norms and procedure in conducting any proceedings under the tax laws, majority <br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 11 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> of the litigation would not reach the Court. The law has conferred such powers to <br /> <br /> protect the interest of the revenue, which needs to be exercised only in a manner as <br /> permissible and not arbitrarily. <br /> 12. In this view of the matter, we are of the clear opinion that present case <br /> can be categorized to be quite gross wherein the requirements of law, for the best <br /> reasons known to such officer, have been breached. Further, even after the position <br /> th<br /> in law was pointed out by the Petitioner in the representation dated 26 January <br /> 2026, the concerned officer for reasons which we do not know, however which Mr. <br /> Patkar says it to be quite extraneous, did not bother even to respond to such <br /> representation. The Petitioner had not only furnished correct legal information but <br /> also provided an alternate security to avoid such drastic action of attachment of the <br /> petitioner’s bank account. However, the officer remained satisfied on maintaining <br /> such attachment. Thus, the whole approach of the concerned officer was of <br /> unwarranted coercion by attaching the bank accounts and that too without <br /> issuance of a show cause notice. Such attachment has continued to operate for three <br /> months depriving the Petitioner of the valuable right guaranteed under Article <br /> 300A of the Constitution of India apart from the petitioner being put to a live <br /> death on the business being brought at a standstill. This has certainly resulted into <br /> civil consequences and serious prejudice to the Petitioner in complete breach of the <br /> principles of law.<br /> 13. In this view of the matter, while we set aside the impugned attachment <br /> orders, the Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Investigation-A is directed to deposit <br /> an amount of Rs.25,000/- as costs with the Secretary, Maharashtra State Legal <br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 12 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> Services Authority, High Court premises, Mumbai within a period of two months <br /> <br /> from the date a copy of this order is made available. Ordered accordingly. <br /> 14. We are informed by Mr.Patkar, learned counsel for the Petitioner that, <br /> against this very officer, contempt proceedings have been initiated by a co-ordinate <br /> Bench in Mishal J.Shah HUF (Keeyan Enterprises) Vs. State of Maharashtra and <br /> others (Writ Petition (L) No.38480 of 2024 with Show Cause Notice No.16 of <br /> th<br /> 2024) by tendering the order dated 7 January 2025 although it is the submission <br /> made on behalf of the Respondents that the contempt proceedings have now been <br /> dropped. We do not intend to delve into this case of the respondents, as we are <br /> satisfied that in the facts of the present case, certainly costs are required to be <br /> imposed on the said officer personally.<br /> 15. Although we have come to the aforesaid conclusion, a fair submission <br /> has made on behalf of the Petitioner which needs to be stated, namely that the <br /> concerned officer, if at all has any tangible material against the Petitioner, to reach <br /> to an opinion that recovery is required to be made from the Petitioner, in that case, <br /> the Petitioner be issued a show cause notice for any period apart from the period <br /> for which the earlier show cause notice was issued and the same was adjudicated. <br /> Thus, we are of the opinion that the concerned officer if has any tangible material <br /> that tax is to be recovered from the Petitioner, the Petitioner be issued a show cause <br /> notice as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks <br /> from today. In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is disposed of in terms of <br /> the following order :<br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b><br /><br /> 13 of 13 903.WP(L).7888.2026F.DOC<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> rd<br /> (i) The impugned attachment orders Exhibits-A and B, dated 23 January <br /> 2026 are quashed and set aside;<br /> (ii) The Respondents shall be at liberty to issue a show cause notice to the <br /> Petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six weeks <br /> from the date a copy of this order is made available, if there is tangible material <br /> against the Petitioner for recovery to be initiated, and the same be taken to the <br /> logical conclusion in accordance with law;<br /> (iii) All contentions of the parties in the proposed proceedings are expressly <br /> kept open;<br /> (iv) The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.<br /> ( AARTI SATHE , J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)<br /> M.S.Thatte<br /> <b><i>::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2026</i></b> <b><i>::: Downloaded on - 09/04/2026 21:50:30 :::</i></b></div>