Bombay HC Quashes ₹42 Cr GST Attachment of Bajaj Realty’s HDFC Bank Accounts for Lack of Reasons [Read Order]
The Bombay High Court quashed the Rs. 42.68 crore GST provisional attachment of Bajaj International Realty’s HDFC Bank accounts.
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court quashed the provisional attachment of bank accounts of Bajaj International Realty Private Limited held with HDFC Bank observing that the tax authorities did not give any reasons while rejecting the company’s objections to the attachment.
Bajaj International Realty Private Limited filed a writ petition challenging the orders passed under Section 83 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Through these orders, the State Tax Department had attached the company’s bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank.
The petitioner is a real estate developer engaged in redevelopment of residential buildings. The company had entered into an agreement on 9 May 2011 with Nityanand Nagar Vibhag IV Co-operative Housing Society for redevelopment of its building. Under this agreement, the developer had to give 168 flats to the existing society members without any payment.
The redevelopment work started in 2015 after getting required permissions. Later, part occupation certificates were issued and between November 2022 and June 2025 the flats were handed over. Out of the total flats, 168 flats were given to society members and 12 flats were given to MHADA without any consideration. The remaining flats were sold as free-sale flats.
In June 2025, the tax department started an investigation under Section 67 of theMGST Act. The authorities claimed that GST was not paid on construction services related to the flats given to the society members and MHADA.
On 26 August 2025, the department issued a pre-show cause notice claiming tax liability of about Rs. 42.68 crore along with interest and penalty. During this period, the Joint Commissioner passed an order attaching the petitioner’s HDFC Bank account. The petitioner filed objections to this attachment which were rejected. Later, another order was passed attaching the company’s bank account in another HDFC Bank branch.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the power of provisional attachment under GST law is very serious and cannot be used casually. They argued that the authorities rejected the objections without giving any reasons, even though detailed reply was submitted by the company.
The State’s counsel defended the department’s action but told the Court that the impugned order rejecting the objections did not contain reasons.
The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Aarti Sathe observed that both the attachment orders and the order rejecting objections did not record any reasons. The court explained that when objections are filed, the authority must consider them and pass a reasoned order.
The court pointed out that the petitioner had given detailed objections and it had the right to know why those objections were rejected. Since this requirement was not followed, the attachment orders were not proper in law.
The High Court set aside the attachment orders and sent the matter back to the tax authority. The authority was directed to give the petitioner a hearing and pass a fresh order according to law.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
