Endeavour Chemicals PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court accepted the submissions of both parties. It directed the Petitioner to offer immovable property as security within four weeks. Upon such offer, the Respondents were to examine it and take a decision within one week. If the immovable property offered was found sufficient to protect the revenue's interest, valued at Rs. 2.07 crores or above, the Respondents were directed to lift the provisional attachment by issuing Form GST DRC-23 or any other relevant form within the stipulated timelines. The Court also directed the Respondents to dispose of the show cause notice dated September 25, 2025, expeditiously, preferably within six weeks. The Petitioner's right to contest the legal infirmities of the provisional attachment order was expressly kept alive for future challenges. The petition was disposed of on these terms.

Facts

The Petitioner, Endeavour Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a provisional attachment order concerning its bank accounts. The Respondents, Union of India and another authority, had issued a communication dated September 30, 2025, informing the Petitioner that the attachment could be lifted if sufficient immovable property was provided as security. This communication also noted that a show cause notice had been issued, tentatively raising a demand of Rs. 2,07,01,514/-. The Petitioner, without prejudice to its challenge to the attachment order's legality, agreed to offer immovable property as security within four weeks. The Respondents agreed to examine the offer and decide within a week of receipt, provided the property was sufficient to protect the revenue's interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner can offer immovable property as security to lift the provisional attachment of its bank accounts, as suggested by the Respondents' communication dated September 30, 2025? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner, while maintaining its contention that the provisional attachment order is legally infirm, agreed to provide immovable property as security in lieu of the attached bank accounts. This was done on instructions and without prejudice to its right to challenge the attachment order. Respondents' Argument: The Respondents stated that they would act in accordance with their communication dated September 30, 2025, provided the Petitioner offers proper immovable property valued at Rs. 2.07 crores or above as security. They relied on the communication itself as the basis for their stance.