[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Creative Carve Pvt Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 December, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-OS:24538-DB
503-WP-L-40222-2025.DOCX
Chaitanya
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally
signed by
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 40222 OF 2025
CHAITANYA
CHAITANYA ASHOK
ASHOK JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2025.12.12
17:47:13
+0530 Creative Carve Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra And Ors. ... Respondents
______________________________________________________
Mr. Sahil Parghi a/w Mr. Shanmuga Dev, Ms. Aditi Jain i/b
Mr. Sriram Sridharan, for Petitioner
Ms. Jyoti Chavan, for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5.
Mr. Prashant Barve, Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, is
present.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Advait M. Sethna, JJ.
DATED : 12 December 2025
ORAL ORDER (Per - M. S. Sonak, J.) :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately, at the
request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
3. The challenge in this Petition is to the provisional
attachment of the Petitioner's bank account No.
04372790000782, with the HDFC Bank at Pimpri Kamala
Crossroads Branch, Pune, under Section 83 of the MGST Act,
2017 and the rules thereunder.
503-WP-L-40222-2025.DOCX
4. Mr. Parghi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on
instructions, submits that the Petitioner has already offered
the following fixed deposit receipts for an aggregate amount
of Rs.14,99,99,999/-, for attachment, in lieu of the above
bank account :-
Sr. FD Number Amount kept as Name of the Branch
No. fixed deposit Bank
(in Rupees)
1. 50301245808842 12,00,00,000/- HDFC Bank Pimpri
Branch
2. 5030122391748 2,99,99,999/- HDFC Bank Pimpri
Branch
5. Mr. Parghi submits that the attachment of the bank
account has serious repercussions on the day to day
operations. The payments of salaries and other expenses are
virtually stalled.
6. Mr. Parghi submits that if some directions are issued to
the Respondents to dispose of the adjudication proceedings
within a time bound schedule, then, the Petitioner will not
press the challenge to the impugned provisional attachment
order. He submitted that this will enable the Petitioner to
satisfy the authorities that there is no case for continuing the
attachment or in any event, from appealing the adjudication
order.
7. Ms. Chavan submits that there is nothing illegal in the
provisional attachment order. She offers to file affidavits of
the Respondents to justify the provisional attachment order.
503-WP-L-40222-2025.DOCX
8. In our Judgment, the without prejudice offer now made
by the Petitioner appears to be fair and reasonable. This offer,
if accepted, will also be proportionate to what the Respondent
seek to achieve for recovering the alleged dues which they
have provisionally quantified at Rs.13,69,20,610/-, for the
period April 2019 to July 2025.
9. If the fixed deposit receipts now offered by the
Petitioners to the tune of almost Rs.14 crores are attached by
the Respondents, that will cover the provisional liability
demand. Similarly, the Respondents, can have no objection to
completing the adjudication proceedings because ultimately,
even the impugned order is only a provisional attachment
order. The life of such order, in terms of section 83(2) is only
of one year.
10. Therefore, we dispose of this Petition by passing the
following order :
(a) The Petitioner shall, consistent with their offer made
across the bar and also, contained in their
communication dated 09 December 2025 at pages
213 onwards of the paper book, offer the above two
fixed deposit receipts for provisional attachment by
the Respondents. Ms. Chavan states that these fixed
deposit receipts will be attached in lieu of the
attachment of the Petitioner's above referred bank
account;
503-WP-L-40222-2025.DOCX
(b) Thus, upon the attachment of the two fixed deposit
receipts in lieu of the Petitioner's above referred
account, the attachment on the Petitioner's above
referred bank account shall cease to operate and the
Petitioner will be allowed to use this bank account for
their activities;
(c) The adjudication that has commenced in pursuance
of the show cause notice dated 29 September 2025
and six other show cause notices that are proposed to
be issued by the Respondents will be completed as
expeditiously as possible and in any event before 30
May 2026. The learned counsel for the Petitioner
agrees that if six further show cause notices are
issued, the Petitioner will file response within four
weeks of the receipt of such show cause notices
without seeking any extension of time.
(d) The provisional attachment of the fixed deposit
receipts will ultimately abide by the adjudication
orders and/or the statutory time period. This means
that the provisional attachment, under no
circumstances, will exceed the statutorily prescribed
maximum.
(e) Further, we clarify that this order will not preclude
the Respondent from taking any other action in
accordance with law if the situation so demands.
503-WP-L-40222-2025.DOCX
11. All contentions of all parties on merits are however left
open. Further, we once again record the Petitioner's statement
that the offers made above were strictly without prejudice.
12. The Rule is disposed of in the above terms without any
order for costs.
13. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
14. The HDFC Bank i.e. the Respondent No.4 must take
cognizance of this order and act accordingly.
(Advait M. Sethna, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
