Back
2026 Supreme(Bom) 76
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S.KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Nivara Infradevelopers LLP, through Designated Partner Mr.Nilesh Patil - Appellant
Vs.
The Union of India - Respondent
Writ Petition (L) No.7888 of 2026
Decided On : 02-04-2026
Important Points
Subject
Tax Law - Goods and Services Tax
Act Referred
HIMACHAL PRADESH GOODS AND SERVICE TAX ACT : S.83
CUSTOMS ACT : S.110, S.110(5)
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Abuse of statutory power - Arbitrary, coercive measures without due process - Failure to consider representation offering alternate security - Deprivation of property rights - Exemplary costs to deter repetition and enforce rule of law. (Paras 6, 10, 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Petition challenging impugned provisional attachment orders of bank accounts issued to bankers on same day as pre-attachment communication during ongoing investigation - No opinion formed or reasons recorded in notices - Petitioner objected highlighting legal requirements and offered alternate security, ignored by authorities.
Findings of Court:
Impugned orders quashed and set aside - Officer directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- as costs - Liberty granted to issue show cause notice within six weeks if tangible material exists for recovery.
Issues: Whether provisional attachment valid absent recorded opinion based on tangible material demonstrating necessity for revenue protection; compliance with mandatory procedure under Section 83.
Ratio Decidendi: Exercise of provisional attachment power conditioned on strict, punctilious observance of statutory requirements including prior formation of opinion on tangible material with live nexus to protecting revenue interests - Unguided discretion impermissible; must not be pre-emptive strike merely because assets available - Proportionality mandates balance between measure and purpose.
Result: Petition disposed of with attachments quashed; costs imposed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.Ishaan V.Patkar with Mr.Vinit V.Raje, Mr.Sanskar R.Ahire i/by Alaksha Legal
For the Respondent: Mr.Amar Mishra, AGP
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges gst provisional bank attachments (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. attachment requires opinion based on tangible material (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arbitrary attachments warrant officer costs (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. orders quashed for lacking procedural safeguards (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. draconian powers prevent revenue interest abuse (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. impose costs; permit future show cause notice (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
(G.S.Kulkarni, J.)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs :
(c) that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside the Impugned Orders dated 23 January 2026 being Exhibits A and B to this Petition;
(d) pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Petition, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Impugned Orders dated 23 January 2026 being Exhibits A and B to this Petition and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to forthwith withdraw the attachment of the bank accounts.”
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is primarily against the impugned orders of attachment dated 23rd January 2026 (Exhibits A and B respectively). The impugned orders are intimation to the Petitioner’s bankers namely Punjab National Bank, Mumbai and Saraswat Co-operative Bank Limited, Mumbai attaching the bank accounts of the Petitioner. One of such intimation issued to Punjab National Bank is extracted below :
“Government of Maharashtra
Department of Goods and Service Tax
Office of The,
Joint Commissioner of State Tax, .
Investigation-A,
C-Wlng, 2nd Floor, Old Building,, GST Bhavan, Mazgaon,
Mumbai-400010
No/JCST/lNV-A/ M/s. Nivara Infradevelopers LLP /DRC-22/2025-26/E-118
Mumbai Dated 23-01-2026
“FORM GST DRC- 22"
(See rule 159[1])
To,
The Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Samartha Mandir, Bhalerao Wadi, Hanuman Road,
Vileparle East, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400057.
IFSC: PUNB0373600
Account No: 3736002101019575
Provisional attachment of Bank Account under section 83
It is to inform that M/s. Nivara lnfradevelopers LLP (GSTIN- 27AAKFN9501B1ZF) having principal place of business at CTS No.185 185/1 to 8 , Jalmeena Chs , Tejpal Scheme, Road No.5 Junction , Vile Parle East , Mumbai Suburban, Maharashtra-400057 bearing registration number as 27AAKFN9501B1ZF, PAN AAKFN9501B is a registered taxable person under the MGST/CGST Act.2017. Mr. Prasad Shantaram Patil and Mr. Nilesh Shantaram Patil are the partners of M/s. Nivara lnfradevelopers LLP. Proceedings have been launched against the aforesaid taxable person under section 67(2) of the said Act to determine the tax or any other amount due from the said person. As per information available with the department, it has come to my notice that the said person has account in your bank having account no.3736002101019575.
In order to protect the interests of revenue and in exercise of the powers conferred under section 83 of the Act, I Prerna Deshbhratar (IAS), Joint Commissioner of State Tax, Investigation-A, hereby provisionally attach the aforesaid account.
No debit shall be allowed to be made from the said account or any other account operated by the aforesaid person on the same PAI\: without the prior permission of this department.
Prerna Deshbhratar (IAS]
Joint Commissioner of State Tax,
lnvestigation-A, Mumbai.
1) Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Inv-A (E-0101)
2) Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Inv-A, (D-0103)
3) M/s. Nivara lnfradevelopers LLP.”
3. It appears from the record that on the even date, i.e. on 23rd January 2026, the Petitioner was issued a pre-attachment communication in DRC-23, however, on the very same day, the impugned attachment notices to the Petitioner’s bankers, as extracted hereinabove, came to be issued.
4. It is Petitioner’s contention that on a plain reading of the impugned notice, as also the pre-intimation to the attachment, which is dated 23rd January 2026, it is clear that basic principles of law are not follo
