Oral Judgment: (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.)

1. Rule.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 waive service. Respondent No. 4 absent, though served.

3. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

4. By this Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge an order of attachment dated 24th December, 2013 and further pray that the same be set aside.

5. The factual background in which this relief is claimed is that the 1st Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the second Petitioner is its Managing Director. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Maharashtra through the Commissioner of Sales Tax and his associate officers who are exercising powers under the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 (“BST Act” for short). In exercise of the powers that are delegated to him, the second Respondent is seeking to enforce the attachment levied on the immovable properties, which shall be more particularly described in the following paragraphs.

6. The Respondent No. 3 is a company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its office at the address mentioned in the cause title.

7. The fourth Respondent carried on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document