Disposed

Afzal Husain Altaf Husain Saiyed Prop. of M/S. Devine Impex v. Union of India Thr the Office of Prin. Commissioner of Central Tax, Mumbai Central and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Oct 2024WP/14540/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order under the CGST Act, holding that the order had ceased to have effect after the statutory period of one year. The Court directed the respondents to intimate the bank accordingly within 48 hours.

What did the court decide?

Declaration that the provisional attachment order has ceased to have effect; direction to intimate Indusind Bank Limited within 48 hours.

Afzal Husain Altaf Husain Saiyed Prop… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

ppn 8.wp-14540.24.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

Digitally signed PRACHI by PRACHIPRANESH PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2024.10.24 19:24:18 +0530

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.14540 OF 2024

¶6

Afzal Husain Altaf Husain Saiyed Prop. Of M/s. Devine Impex

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Union of India & Ors.

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr. P. D. Jain a/w Mr. Tanmay R. Sanani i/b. P. D. Jain & Co. for Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mr. S. D. Deshmukh for the Respondents.

¶13

CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED : 24 October 2024.

¶14

PC.:-

¶15

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

2. The challenge in this petition was to the provisional attachment order dated 12 September 2023 (Exhibit ‘C’) to this petition.

¶17

3. Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act,

¶18

2017 provides that every such provisional attachment shall cease to

¶19

have effect after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the

¶20

order made under sub-section (1) of Section 83.

¶21

1 of 2

¶22

ppn 8.wp-14540.24.docx

¶23

4. Accordingly, Mr. Karan Adik, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the provisional attachment order dated 12 September 2023 has ceased to have effect as of date. He, therefore, submits that this petition could be disposed of as infructuous.

¶24

5. Since the impugned provisional attachment order dated 12 September 2023 has ceased to have effect, the respondents must informed the Indusind Bank Limited that this provisional attachment order is no more effective. This intimation must be sent within 48 hours from today. If for any reason the intimation is not sent, Indusind Bank Limited must act on this order and ignore the provisional attachment order dated 12 September 2023, which, in any event, even according to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, has ceased to have effect after one year.

¶25

6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶26

7. We clarify that this relief is restricted only regards the provisional attachment order dated 12 September 2023 (Exhibit ‘C’).

¶27

(Jitendra S. Jain, J.)

¶28

(M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶29

2 of 2

Afzal Husain Altaf Husain Saiyed Prop. of M/S. Devine Impex v. Union of India Thr the Office of Prin. Commissioner of Central Tax, Mumbai Central and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Afzal Husain Altaf Husain Saiyed Prop. of M/S. Devine Impex v. Union of India Thr the Office of Prin. Commissioner of Central Tax, Mumbai Central and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aps Hydro Pvt. Ltd. vs Union of India

S. P. Armada Oil Exploration Private Limited vs Union of India

Viresh Gangaram Joshi vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. vs Union of India

Pt. Obm Drilchem vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Eknath Raosaheb pawar vs Union of India