HC Quashes Bank Attachment for Lack of Reasons in GST Case
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 19 March, 2026

Case Details: Bajaj International Realty (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra [2026] 184 taxmann.com 142 (Bombay)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
-
V. Laxmikumaran, Shanmuga Dev & Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner.
-
Himanshu Takke, AGP for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a real estate developer undertaking redevelopment of a co-operative housing society, executed a project involving free handover of flats to members and sale of remaining flats. During the investigation into alleged tax evasion on such free handovers, it denied liability, accepted minor discrepancies, and filed detailed objections to the pre-show cause notice; however, the jurisdictional officer under the GST provisionally attached its bank accounts and rejected objections filed in Form DRC-22A without assigning reasons, followed by a subsequent attachment. It was contended that such non-speaking rejection violated statutory requirements and principles of natural justice. The matter was accordingly placed before High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that Section 83 of the CGST Act, read with Rule 159 of the CGST Rules, mandates a reasoned order while dealing with objections to provisional attachment. It was observed that failure to record reasons, despite detailed objections, amounted to a breach of a statutory duty and a denial of effective hearing, rendering the action unsustainable. The Court held that the jurisdictional officer under GST must apply mind and provide cogent reasons while confirming or rejecting attachment. Accordingly, the impugned attachment and rejection orders were quashed, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision after granting a proper hearing.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2021] 127 taxmann.com 26/86 GST 665/48 GSTL 113 (SC) (para 14)
- Originative Trading (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2022] 136 taxmann.com 144/91 GST 329/65 GSTL 144 (Bombay) (para 14), followed
List of Cases Referred to
- Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2021] 127 taxmann.com 26/86 GST 665/48 GSTL 113 (SC) (para 11)
- Originative Trading (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2022] 136 taxmann.com 144/91 GST 329/65 GSTL 144 (Bombay) (para 12).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.

Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied

CA | CS | CMA