^®
TaxReply India Private Limited

GST Library

Best GST Library

Subscription Plans

TaxGPT

GST News | Updates

GST Calendar

GST Case Laws

GST Case Laws Sitemap

GST Notifications, Circulars, Releases etc.

Act & Rules

Act & Rules (Multi-view)

GST Rates

HSN Codes ^New

GST Forms

GST Diary

GST Notebook

GST Fees Manager

GST Council Meetings

GST Set-off Calculator

ITC Reversal Calculator

E-invoice Calculator

Inverted Duty Calculator

GSTR-3B Manual

GSTR-9 Manual

GSTR-9C Manual

Full Site Search

E-way Bill

Finance Bill

GST e-books

TaxReply Support

YouTube Videos

Twitter

Buy Premium Tax Domains

About Us

Our Services

🔒

TaxReply India Pvt Ltd

🔒

^®

Subscribe Free GST updates on...

Subscribe to Best GST Library of India and get ahead of the rest. Click here for plans. | GST Act & Rules e-book Click here. |

ELITECON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
(Bombay High Court)

Hon'ble Judges:

AVINASH G. GHAROTE
JAWALKAR

Pet. Counsel

Anupam Dighe

Chandani Tanna

A.m. Sudame

Res. Counsel

N.s. Deshpande

S.n. Bhattad

Petitioner / Applicant	ELITECON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Respondent	UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Court	Bombay High Court
State	Maharashtra
Date	Sep 5, 2024
Order No.	WRIT PETITION NO. 4934/2024
Citation	2024(9) TAXREPLY 10769
Add to Favorites	Add to favorites.
Download Original Order
Print (Full Page)
Print (Judgement Only)

Related Tags :

☍

Section 83

TaxGPT ^Beta

Summarize this case by TaxGPT in

Listen this case in simple words

Audio Timeline

Audio Speed:

AA |

ORDER
ORDER 1. At the outset, the learned counsel for petitioner seeks to delete the respondent Nos.4 to 6 from the array of respondents. The same is permitted at the risk and consequences of the petitioner. The deletion be carried out forthwith. 2. The petition questions the orders dated 24.07.2024 (page Nos. 69, 70 and 72), whereby in exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, orders of provisional attachment of the petitioner have been passed by the respondent No.2. Mr. Sujay Kantawala, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that the impugned orders are infirm inasmuch as it does not reflect the opinion of the Commissioner, that for the purpose of protecting interest of the Government revenue it is necessary to do so. 3. In view of the above contentions, we had asked Mr. Bhattad, learned counsel for the respondents, to point out the reasons for forming such an opinion, as the impugned orders does not reflect any reasons for rec....