Bombay High Court
Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner Of State Tax Nodal 1 … on 10 June, 2025
Author: M.S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
Digitally signed
2025:BHC-OS:8549-DB
REVATI VAIBHAV
by REVATI
VAIBHAV KADAM 902.WP.1928.25.DOCX
KADAM Date:
2025.06.12
10:06:20 +0530
Revati
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2025
Skytech Rolling Mill Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner
Versus
Joint Commissioner of State Tax Nodal ... Respondent
1 Raigad Division
______________________________________________________
Mr Tanmay Phadke, for Petitioner.
Mr Amar Mishra, AGP , for Respondent No.1 to 3.
______________________________________________________
CORAM : M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED : 10 June 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Jitendra Jain,J.):-
1. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the
request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties.
2. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenges the action of Respondent No.1, dated 8 May
2025, under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and
Service Tax (MGST Act) whereby the cash credit account of
the Petitioner with ICICI Bank has been attached
provisionally.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the
Respondents.
4. There is no dispute that the account attached under
Section 83 of the MGST Act is “cash credit account”.
Page 1 of 4
::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/06/2025 21:22:53 :::
902.WP.1928.25.DOCX
Therefore, the short issue which arises for our consideration
is whether on a reading of Section 83 of the MGST Act, a
“cash credit account” can be provisionally attached by
exercising power under the said Section.
5. Section 83 of the MGST Act reads as under:-
Section 83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in certain
cases.-
1 [(1) Where, after the initiation of any proceeding under
Chapter XII, Chapter XIV or Chapter XV, the Commissioner is of
the opinion that for the purpose of protecting the interest of the
Government revenue it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in
writing, attach provisionally, any property, including bank
account, belonging to the taxable person or any person specified
in sub-section (1A) of section 122, in such manner as may be
prescribed.]
(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to have effect
after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the
order made under sub-section (1).
[emphasis supplied]
6. Section 83 of the MGST Act provides for provisional
attachment of ‘any property including bank account
belonging to the taxable person’. The cash credit account is a
liability which an account holder owes to the bank for
availing the loan facility and therefore by no stretch of
imagination cash credit account can be construed as a
property belonging to the account holder/Petitioner. The
phrase ‘including bank account’ following the phrase, “any
property” would mean a non cash-credit bank account.
Therefore, in our view, a “cash credit account” would not be
governed by Section 83 of the MGST Act.
Page 2 of 4
::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/06/2025 21:22:53 :::
902.WP.1928.25.DOCX
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has rightly relied
upon the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in the case of
Manish Scrap Traders Vs Principal Commissioner1,
J.L.Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner2 and J.L.Enterprises
Vs Assistant Commissioner3 in support of his submissions that
in these decisions provisional attachment under Section 83 of
cash credit account has been quashed. The learned counsel
for the Petitioner also submits that the similar issue arose
before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/S.
Sargam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.4
wherein a very similar provision appearing in the Navi
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act fell for consideration of
this Court and this Court after analysing the nature of the
cash credit account held that such an account cannot be
attached since it is not an asset or property of the account
holder.
8. We have not been shown any judgment contrary to the
above referred decisions. In any case, in our view, for the
reasons stated above “cash credit account” cannot be treated
as “property” of the account holder which can be consider
under Section 83 of the Act.
9. The Respondents are directed to immediately withdraw
letter dated 8 May 2025 addressed to the ICICI Bank, Malad
1
(2022) 141 taxmann.com 153 (Gujarat)
2
(2023) 152 taxmann.com 278 (Calcutta)
3
(2025) 172 taxmann.com 266 (Calcutta)
4
Writ Petition No. 4313 of 2008
Page 3 of 4
::: Uploaded on – 12/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on – 12/06/2025 21:22:53 :::
902.WP.1928.25.DOCX
(E), Mumbai 97 and inform the same to the said bank
immediately within next 24 hours.
10. We may however clarify that this order would not
preclude the Respondents to recover by any other mode from
the Petitioner, if any dues are pending, as per law.
11. Ordinarily, we would have relegated the petitioner to
the alternate remedy. However, the impugned communication
dated 8 May 2025 is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary
to the precedents on the subject. Therefore, this Court has
exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
12. In view of the above, the Petition is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a) and (b) which reads as under :-
(a) Hold, adjudge and declare that the impugned order dated
08.05.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 83 of
the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017 (Exhibit F) is
wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal ;
(b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ in the nature of Certiorari
or any other writ, order, or direction, quashing the impugned
order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1 under
Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Act, 2017
(Exhibit F).
13. The Petition is allowed in the above terms.
14. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this
order.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J) Page 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 12/06/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2025 21:22:53 :::