ORDER

M.S. Sanklecha, J. - At the request of the parties, this petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges a notice dated 30th August, 2018 issued by the Deputy Director in the office of the Director General of GST Intelligence (Respondent No. 2 herein). The impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018 attaches the petitioner''s Account in Union Bank of India under Section 87(b)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), for recovery of service tax payable under the Act.

3. This, the petitioner complains is, without jurisdiction. This for the reason that the impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018, has been issued when there is no amount adjudicated as payable under the Act after issuing a show cause notice under Section 73 of the Act. Consequently, it is the Petitioner''s grievance that attachment by the impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018 is contrary to and in defiance of the binding decisions of this Court in Quality Fabricators & Erectors v. Dy. Dir, DGCEU - 2016 (41) S.T.R. 11 (Bom.), Lawson Tours & Travels (I) P. Ltd., v. Dy. Dir, DGCEV - 2015 (317) E.L.T. 248 (Bom.), ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Union of India - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 907 (Bom.) and Cleartrip (P) Ltd. v. Union of India - 2016 (42) S.T.R. 948 (Bom.).

4. Briefly, the fact leading to this petition, are as under :-

(a) The petitioner is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of renting, transport services, management services etc. and is duly registered with the authorities under the Act. Petitioner is paying service tax by filing periodic returns under Section 70 of the Act;

(b) On 8th September, 2017 the officer of Respondent No. 2 carried out a search operation at the premises of the petitioner and its group Companies. Consequent to the search, the officer of Respondent No. 2 were of the view that there was nonpayment and/or short payment of service tax by the petitioner for the periods 2012-13 to 2014-15. Thereafter, an investigation was carried out and statement of the petitioner''s partners were recorded;

(c) Consequent to the above, Respondent No. 2 issued an impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018, attaching petitioner''s Bank Account in Union Bank of India. Further, the impugned notice also directed the bank to pay the amount lying therein into the treasury under the head ''service tax''. Further, the impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018 also informed the bank that failure to comply with the notice, would lead to the bank being declared as assessee in default under the Act;

(d) Consequent to the above impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018, the bank i.e. Union Bank of India has deposited an amount of Rs. 19,19,676/- towards service tax into the treasury. This, as directed by the impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018; and

(e) Consequent to the above, on 3rd September, 2018, the present petition was filed.

5. After the filing the present petition, Respondent No. 2 has issued a show cause notice dated 8th September, 2018, calling upon the petitioner to show cause why service tax amount of Rs. 2,81,97,456/- should not be demanded and recovered for the period 1st October, 2012 to 30th June, 2017. This notice was issued in terms of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act. It also records the fact that an amount of Rs. 19,19,676/- out of the above, had already been recovered, consequent to the impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018.

6. It is in the above facts that, Mr. Raichandani, Learned Counsel in support of the petition, submits as under :-

(a) that the impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as Section 87 of the Act, has been invoked prior to issue and/or adjudication of the show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned notice dated 30th August, 2018 is not sustainable in law. In support, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in Quality Fabricators & Erectors (supra), Lawson Tours & Travels (I) P. Ltd. (supra) and ICICI Bank Ltd.