Bombay High Court
Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Private LimitedversusUnion of India Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner may file an appeal against the adjudicating officer’s order and may seek relief from the attachment, and limitation objections will not preclude the appeal if filed within four weeks.
Summary
The petitioner, Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the attachment of its bank account that was effected before it received notice of the adjudicating officer's order. The petitioner argued that the attachment was coercive and that it had a right to appeal the order of the Assistant Commissioner of GST within the prescribed period. The Court observed that the petition was filed within the time required for an appeal and was bona fide. It directed that the petitioner be allowed to file an appeal against the adjudicating officer’s order and, if necessary, an application for lifting the attachment. The Court further held that if the appeal is filed within four weeks from the date of the order, limitation objections would not bar the appeal. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, keeping all contentions open for consideration in the forthcoming appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the attachment of the petitioner's bank account prior to service of the adjudicating officer's order is justified.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner of GST despite the attachment.
- Whether limitation objections can be barred in the appeal if filed within the stipulated period.
Subjects
- GST
- Bank account attachment
- Appeal
- Limitation
- Writ petition
- Administrative order
Judgment
37-wp 11360-26.doc
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
ARJUN
MACHHINDRA
KADAM WRIT PETITION NO. 11360 OF 2026
Date: 2026.08.31
17:34:41 +0530
Swadeshi Civil Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. … Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. Ranit Basu a/w. Ms. Maitri Malde, Ms. Harshada Nirmal and Ms.
Dua Shaikh for the Petitioner.
Ms. Sangeeta Yadav for the Respondents.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
even before the impugned order was served on the petitioner, the
bank account was attached. It is only when the bank account was
attached, that the petitioner came to know of the passing of the
impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is remedy of preferring an appeal against the order passed by
the adjudicating officer. It is further submitted that the coercive
Amk 1/2
37-wp 11360-26.doc
action of attaching the bank account is not justified and hence the
petitioner has approached this Court.
3. We find that the present petition has been filed within the time
otherwise required for preferring an appeal. The petition has been
filed bonafide. In the facts of this case, it would be appropriate if the
petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the appellate authority
challenging the order passed by the adjudicating officer i.e. the
Assistant Commissioner of GST. It would be open for the petitioner
to file an appropriate application for lifting the attachment of the
bank account on the grounds as raised in this petition. If the appeal
is preferred within a period of four weeks from today, the same shall
be entertained on merits and the objections of limitation shall not
come in the way of the adjudication of the appeal.
4. Keeping all contentions open, the petition is disposed of.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 2/2
Checking your session…