[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Bajaj International Realty Private ... vs State Of Maharashtra on 26 February, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-OS:5319-DB 11WP922-26.DOC
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.02.26
21:49:55
+0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.922 OF 2026
Bajaj International Realty Private Limited ... .Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. The Commissioner of State Tax
3. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax,
4. The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax,
5. HDFC Bank, Vishal Shopping Centre,
Sir M.V. Road, Opp. Gymkhana
Andheri (E), Mumbai.
6. HDFC Bank, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri East, Mumbai ...Respondents
__________
Mr. V. Laxmikumaran (thr. V.C.) with Shanmuga Dev i/b. Sriram Sridharan, for
Petitioner.
Mr. Himanshu Takke, AGP for State.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 26 February 2026.
Oral Judgment: (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed challenging the
order dated 3 December 2025 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the
petitioner's bank account held with HDFC Bank(s), Sir M.V. Road, Opp.
Gymkhana, Andheri (E), Mumbai - respondent No.5 have been provisionally
attached in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and
Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the MGST Act'). The petitioner has also
challenged the order dated 29 December 2025 passed by respondent No.3 under
Page 1 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
Rule 159 of MGST Rules, rejecting the petitioner's submissions and thereby
maintaining provisional attachment of the said bank account. There is further
order provisional attachment of the petitioner's bank account held with the
HDFC Bank, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri East, Mumbai, - respondent No.6, under
Section 83 of the MGST Act. The substantive prayers as made in the petition are
required to be noted which read thus:-
"a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or
a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, Order or direction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case
leading to the issuance of the impugned Order dated 03.12.2025 (Exhibit
"A") as well as the impugned Order dated 29.12.2025 (Exhibit "B") under
Section 83 of the MGST Act and after going through the same and examining
the question of legality thereof to quash, cancel and set aside the said
impugned Orders; and/or
b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ
in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India holding that the actions of the
Respondent No. 3 are contrary to Section 83 of the MGST Act and hence
ordering and directing the Respondent No. 3 to forthwith lift the provisional
attachment of the Petitioner's bank account maintained with Respondent No.
5; and/or
c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in
the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, Order or direction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to
the issuance of the impugned Order dated 09.01.2026 (Exhibit "C") under
Section 83 of the MGST Act and after going through the same and examining
the question of legality thereof to quash, cancel and set aside the said
impugned Orders; and/or
d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ
in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, Order or direction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India holding that the actions of the
Respondent No. 3 are contrary to Section 83 of the MGST Act and hence
ordering and directing the Respondent No. 3 to forthwith lift the provisional
attachment of the Petitioner's bank account maintained with Respondent No.
6; and/or
e) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in
the nature of Certiorari or any other writ, Order or direction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to
the issuance of the impugned pre-SCN intimation (Exhibit "D") under
Section 74 of the MGST Act and after going through the same and examining
the question of legality thereof to quash, cancel and set aside the impugned
pre-SCN intimation; and/or f) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a
Writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other
Page 2 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
appropriate writ, Order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India holding that the actions of the Respondent No. 4 are contrary to the
provisions of the MGST Act and hence ordering and directing the
Respondent No. 4 to forthwith abate the said proceedings against the
Petitioner under Section 74 of the MGST Act; and/or"
2. The relevant facts as gathered from the memo of the writ petition are
required to be noted :
The petitioner is in the business of development and construction
of residential buildings and re-development of existing old buildings of
Co-operative Housing Societies. An agreement was entered into on 9 May
2011 by the petitioner with one Nityanand Nagar Vibhag IV Co-operative
Housing Society (for short 'the society'), under which, the petitioner was
to hand over 168 flats to the existing owners /members of the said society,
without any consideration. The petitioner entered into separate
agreements with each individual existing owner for the purpose of
construction and hand over units/flat to each of the members of the
society. The redevelopment work commenced in the year 2015, for which
necessary permissions were obtained. Part occupation certificates for
different sets of flats in the re-developed society were granted by the
Building Permission Cell, Greater Mumbai / Maharashtra Area and
Housing Development Authority (for short 'MHADA'). The relevant
dates in that regard are 30 December 2022, 5 January 2024 and 16
February 2024.
3. Between the period November 2022 to June 2025, upon completion of
construction and on receipt of respective part occupancy certificate, the process of
Page 3 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
handover of the flats to the existing owners were undertaken. Out of the flats
constructed, 168 flats and 12 flats were handed over to the existing owners and
MHADA respectively without any consideration, as MHADA was also occupying
certain tenements in that society. It is contended that there is no dispute on the
balance 128 flats which were sold to the prospective buyers/customers by the
petitioner being free sale flats and all compliances of taxes being made.
4. It is the petitioner's contention that the investigation against the petitioner
under Section 67 of the MGST Act was resorted some time in June 2025. In the
course of such investigation, respondents visited the petitioner's premises and
inter alia pointed out the alleged discrepancies of non payment of taxes on
taxable supply of construction services to existing owners namely the society and
MHADA. In the course of such investigation, respondent no. 4 issued summons
to the witness on 2 July, 2025, who were employees of the petitioner in-charge of
the sales. The said representative of the petitioner appeared before respondent
no. 4/Assistant Commissioner of State Tax. Their statements were recorded
under Section 70 of the MGST Act on 2 July, 2025. The petitioner also filed a
letter with respondent no. 4 inter alia denying any liability on account of any
discrepancy as purportedly being pointed out by the department. The petitioner
also, agreed and paid the demands in respect of some of the discrepancies as
pointed out during the said investigation. Also on 7 July, 2025 and 21 July,
2025, the petitioner filed letters with the department inter alia intimating that it
has duly undertaken corrective measures with respect to some of the
discrepancies. A further letter was filed by the petitioner recording detailed
Page 4 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
submissions on 28 July, 2025 inter alia pointing out non-taxability of the
handover of flats to the existing owners/members of the Society and to the
MHADA for free, which was the fourth discrepancy pointed out to the petitioner.
5. On the aforesaid backdrop, respondent no. 4 on 26 August, 2025 an
impugned pre-show cause notice to the petitioner intimating its tax liability
amounting to Rs. 42,68,68,240/-, along with interest and penalty. It is the
petitioner's case that this demand was premised on the alleged supply of services
with respect to re-developed flats provided/transferred by it to existing owners
and MHADA without any consideration. The petitioner submitted its reply to
the pre-show cause notice on 15 September, 2025. Also the additional
submissions were filed on 26 November, 2025 and 1 December, 2025.
6. It is the petitioner's case that even after conclusion of the investigation,
respondent no. 3 passed the impugned order dated 3 December, 2025 attaching
the petitioner's bank account with respondent no. 5-HDFC Bank. On the
petitioner becoming aware of such attachment, it filed detailed objections in
Form GST DRC- 22A to the said attachment. However, as no response was
received on the objections as taken by the petitioner, a follow up email was
addressed by the petitioner on 18 December, 2025 to respondent No.4,
requesting for a expeditious decision on the objections.
7. On such backdrop, immediately on the even date, respondent no. 4 issued
a personal hearing notice to the petitioner scheduling personal hearing in relation
to the attachment of petitioner's bank account under the order dated 3
December, 2025. A hearing was accordingly scheduled on 22 December, 2025
Page 5 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
when the authorized representatives of the petitioner appeared, who made
detailed submissions that the attachment be vacated.
8. On 29 December, 2025, respondent no. 3 passed the impugned Order
rejecting the petitioner's objections and maintaining the attachment made vide
order dated 3 December, 2025.
9. The petitioner has further contended that on 9 January, 2026, respondent
no. 3 passed second impugned order in Form GST DRC-22 whereby the
petitioner's bank account in another branch of HDFC Bank, namely, respondent
no. 6 came to be attached. In these circumstances, the present petition is filed
praying for the reliefs as noted by us hereinabove.
Submissions
10. Mr. V. Laxmikumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner has made
extensive submissions. His primary contention is that the impugned order of
attachment deserves to be quashed and set aside, for the reason that the exercise
of powers under Section 83 of the CGST Act directing provisional attachment of
the petitioners Bank Account, is an extraordinary order and cannot be exercise in
a casual manner. It is submitted that considering the nature of the impugned
order rejecting the petitioners objection, it clearly indicated non application of
mind, in considering the most significant issue as raised by the petitioner, that the
tenements were handed over to the MHADA and to the members free of cost
and therefore there was no question of any supply. Our attention is also drawn to
the impugned attachment orders to submit that it is bereft any reasons and in fact
even before a show cause notice is issued, a conclusion is arrived that the
Page 6 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
petitioner has not discharged its liability of Rs. 42,68,68,240/-, completely
overlooking the fact that there was no liability whatsoever in relation to the
tenements which were handed over free of cost. It his submission that not only in
the impugned attachment dated 3 December 2025 but also in the subsequent
order of attachment dated 9 January 2026, the same are passed in a mechanical
manner and without attributing any reasons despite a detailed reply being
submitted objecting to the attachment. In such context, our attention is drawn to
the detailed reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner dated 15 September 2025
(Exhibit - "O") in which even in regard to applicability of the Notification of 4
of 2018 being not applicable in the facts of the present case, the following
statements were made :
"12.11 Even Notification No. 4/2018 -Central Tax (Rates) dated 25.01.2018
which has been relied in the present DRC-01A under which class of registered
person were notified on which liability to pay the GST would arise. Since, as this
notification, class of registered persons were notified only on 25.01.2018 and in
the present case point of taxation has already triggered on 09.05.2011, therefore,
this notification would not apply to the present case."
11. In supporting the submissions that such coercive action could not have
been taken and that to wholly overlooking the petitioners contention reliance is
placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. 1, wherein the Supreme Court has made the
following observations:
"48. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to emphasize that before the
Commissioner can levy a provisional attachment, there must be a formation of
"the opinion" and that it is necessary "so to do" for the purpose of protecting the
interest of the government revenue. The power to levy a provisional attachment is
draconian in nature. By the exercise of the power, a property belonging to the
taxable person may be attached, including a bank account. The attachment is
provisional and the statute has contemplated an attachment during the pendency
of the proceedings under the stipulated statutory provisions noticed earlier. An
1 (2021) 6 SCC 771
Page 7 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
attachment which is contemplated in Section 83 is, in other words, at a stage
which is anterior to the finalization of an assessment or the raising of a demand.
Conscious as the legislature was of the draconian nature of the power and the
serious consequences which emanate from the attachment of any property
including a bank account of the taxable person, it conditioned the exercise of the
power by employing specific statutory language which conditions the exercise of
the power. The language of the statute indicates first, the necessity of the
formation of opinion by the Commissioner, second, the formation of opinion
before ordering a provisional attachment: third the existence of opinion that it is
necessary so to do for the purpose of protecting the interest of the government
revenue; fourth, the issuance of an order in writing for the attachment of any
property of the taxable person; and fifth, the observance by the Commissioner of
the provisions contained in the rules in regard to the manner of attachment. Each
of these components of the statute are integral to a valid exercise of power. In
other words, when the exercise of the power is challenged, the validity of its
exercise will depend on a strict and punctilious observance of the statutory pre-
conditions by the Commissioner. While conditioning the exercise of the power on
the formation of an opinion by the Commissioner that "for the purpose of
protecting the interest of the government revenue, it is necessary so to do", it is
evident that the statute has not left the formation of opinion to an unguided
subjective discretion of the Commissioner. The formation of the opinion must
bear a proximate and live nexus to the purpose of protecting the interest of the
government revenue.
55. A significant aspect of Rule 159(5) is that upon the levy of a provisional
attachment, the person whose property is attached is empowered to file an
objection within seven days on the ground that the property was or is not liable to
attachment. In using the expression was or is no longer liable for attachment", the
delegate of the legislature has comprehended two alternative situations. The first,
evidenced by the use of the words "was" indicates that the property was on the
date of the attachment in the past not liable to be attached. That is the reason for
the use of the past tense "was". The expression "is not liable to attachment
indicates a situation in praesenti. Even if the property, arguably, was validly
attached in the past, the person whose property has been attached may
demonstrate to the Commissioner that it is not liable to be attached in the
present.
56. The second significant aspect of sub-Rule (5) is the mandatory requirement of
furnishing an opportunity of being heard to the person whose property is
attached. This is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and ensures
that a fair procedure is observed. Sub-Rule (5) provides for a post- provisional
attachment right of:
(i) Submitting an objection to the attachment:
(ii) An opportunity of being heard.
Sub-Rule (5) contains clear language to the effect that a person whose property is
attached is entitled to two procedural entitlements: first, the right to submit an
objection on the ground that the property was not or is not liable to be attached;
and second, an opportunity of being heard to the person filing an objection. This
is a clear indicator that in addition the filing of an objection, the person whose
property is attached is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. It is not open to
the Commissioner, as has been stated in the present case, to hold the view that the
only safeguard under sub-Rule 5 is to submit an objection without an opportunity
of a personal hearing. Such a construction would be plainly contrary to sub-Rule
5 which contemplates both the submission of an objection to the attachment and
an opportunity of being heard. The opportunity of being heard can be availed of
as a matter of right by the person whose property is attached. Both the right to
submit an objection and to be afforded an opportunity of being heard are valuable
Page 8 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
safeguards. The consequence of a provisional attachment is serious. It displaces
the person whose property is attached from dealing with the property. Where a
bank account is attached, it prevents the person from operating the account. A
business entity whose bank account is attached is seriously prejudiced by the
inability to utilize the proceeds of the account for the purpose of business. The
dual procedural safeguards inserted in sub-Rule 5 of Rule 159 demand strict
compliance.
The Commissioner who hears the objections must pass a reasoned order either
accepting or rejecting the objections. To allow the Commissioner to get by
without passing a reasoned order will make his decision subjective and defeat the
purpose of subjecting it to judicial scrutiny. The Commissioner must deal with
the objections and pass a reasoned order indicating whether, and it not, why the
objections are not being accepted. Sub- Rule 6 of Rule 159 allows for the release
of a property which either was or is no longer liable for attachment. The form in
which such an order has to be passed, namely form GST DRC-23, states that
"now there is no such proceeding pending against the defaulting person which
warrants attachment" of the account or as the case may be, the property. Sub-
Rules 5 and 6 do not expressly contemplate a situation in which the person whose
property is attached can object on the ground that the attachment is in excess of
the amount likely to be due for which proceedings have been launched under the
Act. Nor does it provide for a specific opportunity to the taxable person to offer
any alternative form of security in lieu of the attachment. Such an opportunity
must be read in to the provision to allow for a fair working in practice. Whether
any alternative security that is furnished by the taxable person should be accepted
and if so, its sufficiency, is a matter for the Commissioner to determine.
Undoubtedly, the taxable person may not have a right to demand that only a
particular form of security must be accepted. The Commissioner has to decide
whether the form of security offered would secure the interest of the revenue.
Where the taxable person sets up the plea that the extent of the attachment is
excessive or where the taxable person offers an alternative form of security, these
are also matters which ought to be determined by the Commissioner in the
exercise of powers under Rule 159(5). The scope of objection can also extend to
the nature of the property which is being provisionally attached.
Now, it is in this backdrop that we proceed to a determination of whether the
petition under Article 226 was maintainable and if it was, whether Commissioner
exercised the powers under Section 83 read with Rule 159 in accordance with
law."
12. It is submitted that in the context of Section 83 of the CGST Act and in
similar circumstances, issues had fell for consideration of this Court in
Originative Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Ors 2. in which a coordinate
Bench of this Court referring to the decision in Radha Krishan Industries (supra)
and after considering Section 83 of the CGST Act and the provisions of Rule 159
of the CGST Rules and the circular dated 23 February 2021 issued by the
2 (2022) 65 GSTL 144
Page 9 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
Revenue, held that the attachment order impugned therein was passed without
considering the submissions of the petitioner, and accordingly, the same were
required to be held illegal. The following observation made by the Division
Bench are required to be noted :
15. The unamended section 83 of the CGST Act reads thus :
"S. 83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain cases.
(1) Where, after the initiation of any proceeding under Chapter XII,
Chapter X1V 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.
(2) 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).
The said provision was amended on July 1, 2017 and reads thus :
1. Substituted by section 115 of the Finance Act, 2021 dated
March 28, 2021 for
(1) Where during the pendency of any proceedings under section
62 or section 63 or section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or
section 74, 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 in such manner as
may be prescribed.
This amendment shall be effective from a date to be notified.
16. A perusal of the said unamended provisions which are applicable
when the said impugned order of provisional attachment was issued
indicates that if the Commissioner was 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 in such manner as may be prescribed where during the
pendency of any proceedings under section 62 or section 63 or
section 64 or section 67 or section 73 or section 74. In this case, the
proceedings under section 67 of the CGST Act are pending against
the petitioners.
17. Under rule 159 of the CGST Rules the mode and manner of
exercising powers by the Commissioner under section 83 of the
Page 10 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
CGST Act is provided. The Commissioner shall send a copy of the
order of attachment to the concerned revenue authority or transport
authority or any such authority to place the encumbrance on the said
moveable or immovable property, which shall be removed only on
the written instructions from the Commissioner to that effect. The
Commissioner is required to attach any property under rule 159 by
passing an order in form GST DRC-22 to that effect mentioning
therein the details of property which is attached including the bank
account in accordance with the provisions of section 83.
18. It is thus clear that the copy of such order in form GST DRC-22
has to be communicated to the party with which the assets of the
assessee would be found. We are not inclined to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said
communication issued in form GST DRC-22 to various banks by the
Commissioner ought to have been addressed to the petitioner at the
first instance. In our view, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
revenue is right in his submission that if the said communication
would have been issued to the petitioner at the first instance, there
was likely that the petitioner would have withdrawn the amounts
lying in the bank account which would not have been in the interest
of revenue. It is not in dispute that the copy of the communication
was sent to the petitioner simultaneously. In our view, at this stage
when the powers were exercised by the Commissioner under section
83 read with rule 159(1), the Commissioner was not required to
communicate the reasons for issuing any reasons for passing order of
provisional attachment.
19. Under rule 159(5) any person whose property is attached may
within seven days of the attachment under sub-rule (1), file an
objection to the effect that the property attached was or is not liable
to attachment and the Commissioner may after affording an
opportunity of being heard to the person filing the objection, release
the said property by an order in form GST DRC-23. Under rule
159(6), the Commissioner may, upon being satisfied that the
property was, or is no longer liable for attachment, release such
property by issuing an order in form GST DRC-23.
20. On conjoint reading of rule 159 read with circular dated February
23, 2021 and more particularly clauses 3.1.3, 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 would
clearly indicate that the Commissioner has to form an opinion and
must exercise due diligence and duly consider as well as carefully
examine all the facts of the case, including the nature of offence,
amount of revenue involved, established nature of business and
extent of investment in capital assets. He should have reasons to
believe that the taxable person, against whom the proceedings
refereed in section 83 are pending, may dispose of or remove the
property, if not attached provisionally. The basis on which the
Commissioner has formed such an opinion, should be duly recorded
on file.
21. In our view the safeguard as provided in clause 3.1.5 in the said
circular by providing that the power of provisional attachment must
not be exercised in a routine/mechanical manner and careful
examination of all the facts of the case is important to determine
Page 11 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
whether the case is fit for exercising power under section 83. The
collective evidence, based on the proceedings/enquiry conducted in
the case, must indicate that a prima facie a case has been made out
against the taxpayer, before attachment being, by its very nature,
extraordinary, has to be resorted to with utmost circumspection and
with maximum care and caution.
22. In our view, none of those safeguards set out in the said circular
dated February 23, 2021 would affect the rights of the petitioner as
the said circular though grants power to the Commissioner to record
reasons in file, however with a caution that the power must not be
exercised in the routine or mechanical manner and shall be exercised
only after careful examination of the facts of the case.
23. A perusal of the affidavit in reply indicates that according to the
respondents, there are certain material against the petitioner noticed
by the respondents while carrying out investigation. At this stage we
are not expressing any opinion on the correctness of the reasons
recorded by the respondents in the affidavit in reply.
.........
25. The honourable Supreme Court has also dealt with rule 159(5)
providing the right to the assessee to raise an objection. It is held that
the Commissioner who hears the objections must pass a reasoned
order either accepting or rejecting the objections. To allow the
Commissioner to get by without passing a reasoned order will make
his decision subjective and defeat the purpose of subjecting it to
judicial scrutiny. The Commissioner must deal with the objections
and pass a reasoned order indicating whether, and if not, why the
objections are not being accepted. Rule 159(6) allows for the release
of a property which either was or is no longer liable for attachment.
.... ... ... .... ...
28. Insofar as the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of
Bachhittar Singh [1962] Supp (3) SCR 713 relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, a perusal of the said
judgment indicates that the order passed in the said judgment has
dealt with the order passed by the Commissioner in file and was not
communicated to the petitioner. The question arose in that matter
whether such order which remained in file and not having been
communicated to the petitioner could be termed as an enforceable
order or not. In that context the honourable Supreme Court held that
merely because the opinion is formed and the order is passed which
remains on file without communication of such order or opinion
would not partake the character an enforceable order. If the party
against whom such an order is passed remains on file, the aggrieved
party will not come to know about such order and would not have
remedy to challenge such order. In our view, the said judgment would
not advance the case of the petitioner. We have perused the
provisions of section 83 read with rule 159(1). In our view, the
petitioner would be entitled to the copy of the opinion formed by the
Commissioner before filing an objection."
13. On the other hand Mr. Takke, learned AGP has opposed this petition. He
Page 12 of 14
P. V. Rane
::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:26:56 :::
11WP922-26.DOC
justified the impugned action, however, he has fairly stated that the impugned
order does not furnish any reasons.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record as also the decision of the Supreme Court in Radha Krishan Industries
(supra) as also the decision of this Court in Originative Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
the principles therein aptly apply to the facts of the present case. It is clear that
neither the impugned order nor the order rejecting the petitioners objections,
record any reason whatsoever as noted hereinabove. This more particularly when
the petitioner had submitted a detailed reply submitting its objections to the
attachment. The petitioner as a requirement of law was entitled to know as to
why the objections as raised by the petitioner against the attachment were not
valid and/or liable for rejection. Hence, as held by the Division Bench of this
Court in Originative Trading Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it was the duty of the respondent
No.3 to deal with the objections and pass a reasoned order, this is exactly what
has not been complied by respondent No.3. Thus, such basic tenets of law are
breached in passing the impugned attachment orders.
15. In the light of the above discussion, in our opinion, the impugned
attachment orders are required to be quashed and set aside and the proceedings
remanded to the authority - respondent No.3 for a fresh order being passed in
accordance with law. We accordingly dispose of this petition in terms of the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The impugned attachment orders dated 3 December 2025
P. V. Rane
11WP922-26.DOC
(Exhibit - A) and dated 9 January 2026 (Exhibit - C) are quashed
and set aside.
(ii) The proceedings under Section 83 of the CGST Act stands
remanded to respondent No.3 who shall grant an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner and pass a reasoned order under Section 83
of the MGST Act.
(iii) We have not expressed any opinion on the pre-show cause
notice dated 15 September 2025 issued under Section 74(5) of the
CGST and MGST Act.
16. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.
17. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
P. V. Rane
