Provisional attachment under tax law upheld where revenue risk and disputed sham transactions made writ interference inappropriate.

A writ court will ordinarily not interfere with provisional attachment under the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act where the Commissioner acts to protect revenue, the statute provides safeguards through variation or revocation, a hearing, and an appeal, and the record discloses a prima facie basis such as suspected bogus or sham transactions. The constitutional challenge to the set-off provision was treated as premature because the entitlement depended on disputed facts to be determined in assessment proceedings, and the issue was left open for appropriate proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the order of provisional attachment passed under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002; (ii) whether the constitutional challenge to Section 48(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 could be entertained at this stage.

Issue (i): Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the order of provisional attachment passed under Section 35 of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002.

Analysis: Section 35 authorises provisional attachment where the Commissioner forms the opinion that such action is necessary to protect the interests of the revenue. The provision itself contains safeguards: the dealer may seek variation or revocation, a hearing is provided on such application, and a further appeal lies to the Tribunal. On the material placed in reply, the Court found a prima facie basis for the attachment, including material suggesting that the purchasing dealers were not genuine and that the transactions appeared designed to defraud the Revenue. In these circumstances, interference in writ jurisdiction was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The challenge to the provisional attachment was rejected and no writ interference was granted.

Issue (ii): Whether the constitutional challenge to Section 48(5) of the Maharashtra Value Added Tax Act, 2002 could be entertained at this stage.

Analysis: The Court held that a challenge to constitutional validity could not be examined in the abstract and that the petitioner's entitlement to set-off depended upon facts to be established in assessment proceedings. If the underlying transactions were found to be bogus, fraudulent, or sham, the challenge to Section 48(5) would not survive at the threshold. The Court therefore treated the challenge as premature and left the question open for appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to Section 48(5) was not entertained at this stage.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, upheld the provisional attachment in principle, and dismissed the petition while leaving the constitutional question open.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not interfere with provisional attachment made under a revenue-protective statute where the statute provides an internal hearing and appeal mechanism and the challenge to the underlying tax entitlement is premature or depends on disputed facts to be resolved in assessment proceedings.

---