ALI RAJA B VIRANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7770/2022HC BombayHCBM01023847202229 September 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. I. CHAGLA,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE FARHAN PARVEZ DUBASH2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court accepted the statement made by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5. This statement clarified that the attachment in question was not in respect of the units B-101, B-102, and B-202 in Khandwala Shopping Centre Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Malad East, Mumbai, as alleged by the Petitioner. Based on this clarification, the Court directed Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5 to issue a no objection certificate to the Petitioner for completing the transfer of these units in the Petitioner's name. Additionally, Respondent No. 4 was directed to issue maintenance bills for these units in the Petitioner's name. The Writ Petition was disposed of in light of these directions. The Interim Application filed in the petition was also disposed of as it no longer survived.

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Mr. Ali Raja B. Virani, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the attachment of three specific units (B-101, B-102, and B-202) in Khandwala Shopping Centre Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Malad East, Mumbai. The attachment was purportedly made by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5. The Petitioner sought to quash and set aside this attachment. During the proceedings, the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5 made a statement on instructions that the attachment was not in respect of the units mentioned by the Petitioner, but rather a different property. This statement was accepted by the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the attachment made by Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5 pertains to the units B-101, B-102, and B-202 in Khandwala Shopping Centre Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Malad East, Mumbai, as contended by the Petitioner. Assessee's Contention: The Petitioner contended that the specified units were under attachment by the revenue authorities. Revenue's Contention: Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 5, on instructions, stated that the attachment was not in respect of the aforementioned units, but a different property. No specific legal provisions or precedents were cited by either side in the recorded arguments.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13-wp-7770-2022.doc jsn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7770 OF 2022 Mr. Ali Raja B. Virani ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. ...Respondents ---------- Vaishali Bhilare, Kadambari Patil and Atharva Bhilare for the Petitioner. Ms. Swapna Gokhale i/b. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent. Ms. Lakshita Fatnani with Pakaj Vijayan and Sejal Kanase and Rushabh Patel i/b. Intra Legal for Respondent No.3 (PNB). ---------- CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA AND FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2025 ORDER : 1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner had impugned the attachment of unit Nos. B-101, B-102 and B-202 in Khandwala Shopping Centre Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Khandwala Shopping Centre, Daftary Road, Malad East, Mumbai – 400 097 and had sought for quashing and setting aside of the attachment of the 1/2 JITENDRA SHANKAR NIJASURE Digitally signed by JITENDRA SHANKAR NIJASURE Date: 2025.09.30 11:40:42 +0530

13-wp-7770-2022.doc said units by Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 states on instructions that the attachment was not in respect of aforementioned units but in respect of another property which was attached by Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5. The statement is accepted. 3. Accordingly, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5 shall issue no objection certificate to the Petitioner for completing transfer of the aforementioned unit Nos. B-101, B-102 and B-202 in the name of the Petitioner. Further, Respondent No.4 shall issue maintenance bills in the name of Petitioner in respect of the aforementioned units. 4. In view of the above statement, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 5. The Interim Application filed in the Petition does not survive and is also disposed of. [ FARHAN P. DUBASH, J. ] [ R.I. CHAGLA J. ] 2/2

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →