Customs · F2J-C-2795
M/s Nxtify Technologies Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
VALIDATED · ACTUAL COURT-COPY PDFSource transparency: The local PDF is the unchanged public court-copy download. The official court portal is identified separately and is not presented as a judgment-specific deep link. Verify the official record and subsequent history before reliance.
Holding (ratio)
A customs bank-account attachment requires a written reasoned order and prior approval; extension requires recorded reasons and a pre-decisional hearing.
Scope limits
The decision is confined to the issues decided on the retained record; verify the complete judgment and subsequent history before reliance.
Sources and completeness
- PDF status
- Complete searchable public court copy, retained unchanged
- PDF pages
- 40
- Extracted words
- 10,944
- Public report
- Read the public report
- PDF SHA-256
7220cf027761de17b210c60956762423204a750567bfe7284fc5ebba795590b9
Complete searchable judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2517 of 2026
======================================================
M/s Nxtify Technologies Private Limited 3rd Floor, 1034A, Sri Sri Sai
Arcade, 24th Main, 9th Cross, Sector-1, HSR Layout, Bengaluru- 560102,
through its Director, Ashish Kumar, aged about 31 years, Male, S/o J.S.P.
Baranwal, R/o H.No.-138, Street No.- 39, Saraswati Enclave, Gopal Nagar,
Najafgarh, P.O. and P.S.- Najafgarh, District - South- West Delhi, Delhi -
110043.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department
of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), through the
Assistant Commissioner of Customs, 5th Floor, Central Revenue Building,
Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna.
3. ICICI Bank Limited, through its Authorised Representative, 273, 15th Cross,
20th Main, J P Nagar, 5th Phase, Bengaluru- 560078.
4. RBL Bank Limited, through its Authorised Representative, 135 Mig, 60ft
Road, 1st Cross, KHB Colony 5th Block, Near Jyothi Nivas College Back
Gate, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560095.
5. IDFC First Bank Limited, through its Authorised Representative, Ground
Floor, No.- 8/3, PID No. 49-6-8/3, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru- 560004.
6. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, through its Authorised Representative, The
Pinnacle, Ground Floor, No.- 8, 5th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore,
Karnataka- 560095.
7. Yes Bank Limited, through its Authorised Representative, Obelisk Municipal
No.- 3, Kasturba Road, Bengaluru - 560001.
8. IndusInd Bank Limited, through its Authorised Representative, Ground
Floor, Centenary Building, No.- 28, M G Road, Bengaluru - 560001.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ali Muqtadir Ahmad, Advocate
Mr. Maarij Ahmad, Advocate
For Respondent (UOI) : Mr. Dr. K.N. Singh (ASG)
Mr. Sriram Krishna, Sr. SC Customs
Mr. Devansh Shankar Singh, Jr. S.C.
Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, JC to ASG
For the ICICI Bank : Mr. Dayanand Singh, Advocate
Mr. Nagedeo Choubey, Advocate
Mr. Dhananjay Kashyap, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
2/40
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date : 11-09-2026
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner in the present writ application is engaged in
digital marketing and affiliate digital marketing. It is also engaged
in reselling of various brands, gift vouchers/cards, etc. Initially,
this writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) For issuance of the writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the Respondent(s) for calling for records,
thereby disclosing the details of the provisional
attachment orders issued under section 110(5) of the
Customs Act, 1962, and;
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing of the Provisional Attachment Orders placed
on Petitioner’s Bank Accounts maintained with
Respondents No. 3 to 8, and;
(iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus
for commanding and directing Respondents No. 3 to 8:
a. To unfreeze the ICICI Bank (Account No.
16690500167) freezed on 15.10.2025 maintained with
Respondent No. 3,
b. To unfreeze the ICICI Bank (Account No.
166905000336) freezed on 27.10.2025 maintained with
Respondent No. 3,
c. To unfreeze the RBL Bank (Account No.
409000538920) maintained with Respondent No. 4,
d. To unfreeze the IDFC First Bank (Account No.
10110595384) maintained with Respondent No. 5,
e. To unfreeze the Kotak Mahindra Bank (Account No.
2912039178) maintained with Respondent No. 6,
f. To unfreeze the Yes Bank (Account No.
002224000000121) maintained with Respondent No. 7,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
3/40
g. To unfreeze the IndusInd Bank (Account No.
259901328805) maintained with Respondent No. 8,
and;
(iv) For issuance of writs, orders or directions to pass
an ad-interim order staying the operation of the
Provisional Attachment Orders placed on Petitioners
Bank Accounts maintained with Respondents No. 3 to
8, and;
(v) For issuance of any other relief/reliefs which this
Hon’ble Court may deem, fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the present case and for which the
Petitioners may be entitled.”
Brief facts of the Case
3. On or about October, 2023, the respondent no. 2
initiated an investigation against certain firms, namely, M/s Venus
Exports, M/s Vidhur Enterprises and M/s B.K. Overseas for the
alleged contraventions of the provisions contained in Section 50 of
the Customs Act, 1962. The allegations were of fraudulent export
activities and wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (in short
‘ITC’) under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax
Act 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CGST Act’).
4. In course of investigation, the respondent authority
found that the firms against whom investigation was going on had
transferred huge amount in the account of this petitioner. Even as
no investigation was against this petitioner, the respondent no. 2
formed an opinion that to secure the money which were
fraudulently transferred in the account of the petitioner, a
provisional attachment of certain bank accounts of the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
4/40
maintained with ICICI Bank Limited (respondent no. 3) and RBL
Bank Limited (respondent no. 4) were made.
5. The petitioner was served with a notice with an
allegation that it was a third-party beneficiary of certain amount
allegedly fraudulently availed by the exporters. Respondent no. 2
provisionally attached some more bank accounts of the petitioner
maintained with IDFC First Bank Limited (respondent no. 5), Yes
Bank Limited (respondent no. 7) and IndusInd Bank Limited
(respondent no. 8) under the Customs Act.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said
provisional attachments, the petitioner moved before the Hon’ble
Karnataka High Court by filing W.P. No. 28128 of 2024 on
01.10.2024. Provisional attachment of its bank accounts were
challenged. During pendency of the said writ petition, respondent
no. 2 passed adjudication orders dated 18.10.2024 in respect of
two show-cause notices issued to the exporters, imposing penalties
of Rs. 50,00,000/- and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- respectively. The said
amounts were appropriated from the petitioner’s bank accounts
which had been provisionally attached. On 29.10.2024, the
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was pleased to grant an interim
stay of the provisional attachment orders but respondent no. 2
further debited amounts of Rs. 87,924.64/- and Rs. 82,00,000/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
5/40
from the petitioner’s bank accounts on 04.11.2024 and 14.11.2024
respectively. Against the adjudicatory orders, the petitioner has
preferred statutory appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals),
Patna on 16.12.2024, which are presently pending. The prayer of
the petitioner before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court seeking
refund of the amounts illegally debited from its bank accounts did
not work as the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court granted liberty to
the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and to approach the
appropriate forum.
7. It is stated that after withdrawal of the writ petition
filed by filed before the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the
petitioner had approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing
number CWJC 14059 of 2025 on 05.08.2025 challenging the
appropriation of money by respondent no. 2 pursuant to three
orders in original passed under the Customs Act. During pendency
of the said writ petition, in October 2025, the petitioner came to
know that its bank accounts maintained with respondent nos. 3 to 6
had again been subjected to a ‘debit freeze’. Thereafter, on 27 th
October 2025, another bank account of the petitioner maintained
with respondent no. 3 was also placed under debit freeze. The
details of the bank accounts provisionally attached during the
pendency of the writ petition before this Court are given in the writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
6/40
application. A perusal thereof would show that altogether five bank
accounts of the petitioner maintained with ICICI Bank, RBL Bank,
IDFC First Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank were put on debit
freeze in October 2025. The details are provided in Annexure ‘P/6’
series to the writ application.
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prior
to putting the accounts on debit freeze no notice was given to the
petitioner. The petitioner filed one I.A. No. 01 of 2025 in the
pending writ petition seeking to amend the prayers and quashing
of the provisional attachment/debit freeze imposed on the bank
accounts. It is submitted that the learned coordinate Bench of this
Court disposed of CWJC No. 14059 of 2025 on 20.11.2025
directing the appellate authority to consider and dispose of the
pending appeals of the petitioner preferably within a period of six
months from the date of production of a copy of the order. I.A. No.
01 of 2025 was not entertained but disposed of without passing
any order thereon with an observation that challenge to the
provisional attachment/debit freeze pertain to a distinct and
independent cause of action. It is in this background, the petitioner
has preferred the present writ application.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
7/40
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court towards Annexure ‘P/6’ series and ‘P/7’
series to the writ application to submit that on perusal thereof it
would appear that in the various accounts of the petitioner debit
freeze were marked due to standing instructions. The banks sent
SMS to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that after
getting knowledge of the debit freeze imposed in the bank
accounts in October 2025, multiple representations were made by
the petitioner to the office of respondent no. 2 as well as to the
Chief Commissioner, Customs, Patna vide emails followed by
written representations, but for the first time, the respondent no. 2
responded vide communication dated 17.11.2025. The respondent
no. 2 informed the petitioner that during the course of
investigation relating to certain exporters, a purported trail of
funds had been noticed in the petitioner’s bank accounts. Thus,
directions had been issued to respondent nos. 3 to 6 to attach the
said accounts under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act. It was
informed that defreezing was not possible due to the alleged
ongoing investigation.
10. The submission of the petitioner is that the debit
freeze orders were placed with the banks without any provisional
attachment orders having been issued or communicated to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
8/40
petitioner at that stage. It is stated that such orders were ultimately
issued only on 07.01.2026, i.e. post facto in order to legitimize and
cure the earlier arbitrary and unauthorized debit freezes imposed at
the behest of respondent no. 2.
11. It is pleaded that the exercise of power under Section
110(5) must necessarily precede and not follow the attachment of a
bank account. Therefore, it is submitted that the freezing of the
petitioner’s bank accounts in October 2025 followed by issuance
of the impugned orders only on 07.01.2026 constitutes a clear and
impermissible post facto attempt to retrospectively validate an
action taken without authority of law.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the impugned orders cannot operate retrospectively so as to cure or
validate an otherwise illegal attachment. Reliance has been placed
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of
Chokshi Arvind Jewellers vs. Union of India reported in 2024
SCC OnLine Bom 793:(2024) 134 GSTR 494 wherein it has
been held that power of provisional attachment under Section
110(5) of the Customs Act is draconian and coercive in nature and
must strictly conform to the both substantive and procedural
requirements of the statute. Paragraph ‘36’, ‘40’ and ‘42’ of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
9/40
judgment in the case of Chokshi Arvind Jewellers (supra) have
been relied upon.
13. Learned counsel has further relied upon another
judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.
reported in (2020) 83 GSTR 433 : 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 978
wherein the Hon’ble High Court directed the respondents to
unfreeze the bank accounts of the petitioner. It was held that an
order in writing for provisional attachment of a bank account is a
must before such an account can be attached. Paragraph ‘31’, ‘32’
and ‘33’ of the judgment in the case of Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd.
(supra) have been relied upon.
14. Learned counsel submits that the Central Board of
Indirect Taxes and Customs (in short ‘CBIC’) instructions are also
in consonance with the judicial pronouncements on the subject.
Assailing the impugned orders of provisional attachment, learned
counsel submits that the impugned orders do not contain any
reasons and the orders do not show that the proper officer had
formed an ‘opinion’ that it is necessary to attach the account. It is
submitted that for passing an order of provisional attachment, the
approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner was
required and the order in writing was to be passed for any such
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
10/40
attachment but neither respondent no. 2 furnished any specific
reasons nor disclosed any tangible material linking the petitioner
to the alleged fraudulent export activities. There is nothing to show
that why attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts was
necessary.
15. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of
Customs (Import) vs. Gem Nuts and Produce Exports Co. P.
Ltd. reported in (2010) 3 GSTR 618 : 2009 SCC OnLine Bom
1629 to submit that even though the expression “any person”
under Section 142 of the Customs Act may appear wide,
attachment or recovery from a non-defaulter recipient in
impermissible unless it is established that such person had
knowledge of the fraud or was holding the moneys on behalf of the
defaulter. Reliance has been placed on paragraph ‘19’ and ‘20’ of
the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import)
vs. Gem Nuts and Produce Exports Co. P. Ltd. (supra).
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had been summoned in connection with the inquiry
being conducted against M/s Kumar Enterprises and Kentil
Technosoft Private Limited, who are said to be the alleged
exporters, who had been involved in fraudulent exports. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
11/40
petitioner has been asked to furnish the details of transactions
undertaken by the petitioner with these two entities. In paragraph
‘49’ of the writ petition, the petitioner has made a submission that
it is not engaged in the business of exports nor does it undertake
any export-related activities. In his submissions, no proceeding is
pending against the petitioner.
17. It is further submitted that in the case of Mundhra
Exim Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. vs. Additional Director General, DRI
reported in (2025) 152 GSTR 27 : 2025 SCC OnLine MP 7256 it
has been held that a provisional attachment under Section 110(5) can
be made only during the pendency of the proceedings under the
Customs Act. It is submitted that a “proceeding” necessarily
presupposes issuance of a notice under Section 28 of the Customs
Act and that the power under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act
cannot be exercised during preliminary investigation. In Radha
Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors.
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that there must be a pendency of proceedings under the relevant
provisions before an order of provisional attachment is to be issued.
Stand of the Respondents
18. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that in the guise of providing
digital marketing services and issuance of prepaid/gift cards, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
12/40
petitioner received substantial funds originating from the
fraudulent exporters through intermediaries such as Shri Vipul
Agrawal and thereafter converted such funds into prepaid
instruments, thereby facilitating dissipation and concealment of
illicit proceeds. The statements recorded under Section 108 of the
Customs Act from the Director and Officials of the petitioner’s
company clearly establishes that amounts were received from
entities like M/s Venus Exports and utilised for issuance of prepaid
cards against commission.
19. It is stated that in view of the established money trail
and to safeguard government revenue, the competent authority
invoked powers under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962
and provisionally attached the bank accounts of the petitioner. The
respondents have given details of the adjudication proceedings
which were initiated and penalties were imposed against the
petitioner under Section 114AA of the Customs Act. It is stated
that pursuant to the said adjudication orders and in continuation of
protective measures, directions were issued to various banks to
transfer the attached amounts. As regards those adjudication
orders, the appeals are pending before the Commissioner
(Appeals), Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
13/40
20. It is stated that during the course of further
independent investigation involving twelve other exporters, fresh
evidence and financial trails emerged, once again linking the
petitioner as a beneficiary of the proceeds of fraudulent exports. In
the case of M/s Kumar Enterprises, it was found that an amount of
Rs. 46,52,000/- was transferred to the petitioner. Based on the
information received, necessary action was taken by issuing
directions to the concerned bank, namely, Kotak Mahindra Bank,
for fresh provisional attachment of bank accounts of the petitioner
and for obtaining KYC documents and bank statements for further
scrutiny.
21. It is stated that in the case of M/s Kentil Technosoft
Private Limited, the investigation revealed a money trail exceeding
Rs. 3 crore flowing into the accounts of the petitioner, thereby
establishing a substantial and independent nexus of the petitioner
with yet another set of fraudulent export transactions. In view of
these materials, the evidences emerging from separate
investigation, the competent authority again exercised powers
under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 and directed
further provisional attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts. It
is stated that the subsequent/further attachments of the bank
accounts were not a continuation of earlier action but were
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
14/40
necessitated by new investigations involving different exporters
and fresh money trails wherein the petitioner again surfaced as a
beneficiary.
22. Learned ASG representing the respondents submits
that the details of the provisional attachment orders issued under
Section 110(5) of the Customs Act has already been communicated
to the petitioner. It is submitted that the orders for provisional
attachment of bank accounts have been passed in accordance with
law to safeguard the government exchequer, defrauded by the
fraudulent exporters, transferring the illicit money into the bank
accounts maintained by the petitioner with respondent nos. 3 to 8.
The debit freeze order was issued in order to protect the siphoning
of the money lying in the account of the petitioner.
Consideration
23. When this writ application was taken up for
consideration on 02.07.2026, after hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned ASG for the State, this Court passed the
following order:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.S.G. for the Department of Customs.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
freezing of his seven bank accounts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not
dispute the power of respondent no. 2 to freeze bank
accounts by passing a provisional order of
attachment initially for a period of six months and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
15/40
then the same may be extended for a further period
of six months but his submissions are as under :-
(i) The power conferred under sub-Section (5) of
Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a drastic
power which may have an effect of causing civil
death to an ongoing business concern. It is for this
reason, the proper Officer has to form an opinion
and only when he finds that for purposes of
protecting the interest of the revenue on preventing
smuggling, it is necessary to attach any bank
account, he has to pass an order in writing. The order
in writing itself pre-supposes that it must contain
reasons.
(ii) The power to extend the provisional order of
attachment not exceeding six months is to be
exercised only after giving an opportunity of hearing
to the party likely to be affected by such extension,
hence the extension order must record reasons for
doing so.
4. Learned counsel has relied upon the Instruction
No. 19/2024-Customs dated 22nd July, 2024 issued
by the Govt. of India in Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect
Taxes and Customs (Investigation-Customs).
Paragraph '8' thereof has been referred to.
5. It is submitted that in this case not only the order
of provisional attachment has been issued at a
belated stage, i.e., much after freezing the bank
accounts/attaching the bank accounts of the
petitioner, the provisional order of attachment are
bereft of any reasons and further the extension of the
same has been given without providing any
opportunity of hearing.
6. We have called upon learned A.S.G., who is
representing the Department of Customs, to answer
the aforesaid issues.
7. As prayed, let this matter be listed on 9 th of July,
2026 under the same heading maintaining its
position.
8. In case any affidavit is required to be filed by the
Department, the same must be filed well before the
next date of listing with prior service of copy on
learned counsel for the petitioner.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
16/40
24. After the matter was adjourned for 9th July 2026, in
the interregnum period, the respondent no. 2 issued a show cause
notice to the petitioner on 3rd July, 2026 calling upon him to
appear on 06.07.2026 in order to give him an opportunity of
hearing. On 06.07.2026, the petitioner appeared and was heard.
The respondent passed a fresh order on 06.07.2026 which was
brought on record with the supplementary counter affidavit.
25. This Court has expressed its reservations and
unhappiness with the manner in which the respondent no. 2 took
fresh steps during pendency of the writ application which
amounted to interfering with the course of justice. The learned
ASG having understood that the action of the respondents during
pendency of the writ application is not justified, submitted that the
order dated 06.07.2026 passed by the authority would not be
pressed before this Court. The order dated 10.07.2026 passed by
this Court is being reproduced hereunder:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned ASG for the Department of Customs.
2. This matter was heard at length on 02.07.2026.
The issues raised by learned counsel for the
petitioner were taken note of in its order by this
Court. The matter was, however, adjourned on the
request of learned ASG in order to enable him to
answer the issues recorded by this Court. The case
was fixed for 9th of July, 2026.
3. At this stage, a supplementary counter affidavit
has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2.
It appears that during the interregnum period, the
respondent authority has attempted to tweak the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
17/40
order impugned in the present writ application.
Without seeking permission of this Court, the
department went on issuing a notice to the
petitioner on 3rd of July, 2026 calling upon him to
appear on 06.07.2026. The formality of giving
hearing was done on 6th of July, 2026 which
according to the department was the last date on
which the limitation for passing an order of
extension of the provisional order was going to
expire. The respondent passed a fresh order dated
06.07.2026 which has been brought on record with
the supplementary counter affidavit.
4. It is crystal clear that attempt has been made to
render the writ application infructuous. Taking
advantage of the adjournment of the case to answer
the issue, the respondent authority could not have
tweaked the impugned order. This is not a fair play
in action. This is also in breach of judicial
discipline. The respondent authority exercising
power of a statutory authority is acting as a quasi-
judicial authority. Needless to say that the
distinction between a judicial order and a quasi-
judicial order is very thin and sometimes that
distinction is also obliterating, therefore, the
principles which are followed by the courts of law
are equally binding upon the officers exercising
quasi-judicial powers. This Court is not happy with
the manner in which the authority has acted during
pendency of the writ application.
5. We are not going into this issue further as
learned ASG has immediately realized the
situation. It is submitted by learned ASG that
having understood the fact that this action could
not have been taken during pendency of the writ
application, he would not press the order dated
06.07.2026 passed by the authority.
6. Learned ASG submits at this stage that on going
through Annexure ‘A’ to Annexure ‘RA-2’,
attached with the supplementary counter affidavit,
he has found that there are some provisional
attachment orders which were issued without
approval of the Commissioner. The provisional
attachment orders issued on 23.10.2025 and
10.10.2025 have been referred to. Similarly, the
extension order dated 16.04.2026 (related to those
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
18/40
two attachment orders shown in the Annexure ‘A’)
is not in accordance with law. So far as other orders
are concerned, learned ASG submits that he would
explain that those orders need no interference.
7. It is submitted at this stage that the provisional
attachment order dated 23.10.2025 and 10.10.2025
as also the extension order dated 16.04.2026 may
be set aside with regard to those two bank
accounts, however, learned ASG submits that
liberty be granted to the department to issue fresh
notices and to pass an appropriate order after
giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
8. Due to paucity of time, the hearing remained
unconcluded today.
9. As prayed by learned ASG, list this matter on
Wednesday i.e. 15.07.2026 under the same heading
maintaining its position when he will place on
record the chart showing the various cases and the
orders passed at different stages.”
26. In course of hearing of the matter, learned ASG has
drawn the attention of this Court towards Annexure ‘A’ attached to
Annexure ‘RA-2’, with the supplementary counter affidavit filed
on behalf of respondent no.2. From the chart (Annexure ‘A’), it is
shown that except the provisional attachment order dated
23.10.2025 in case of Kumar Enterprises and the provisional
attachment order dated 10.10.2025 in case of Kentil Technosoft
Private Limited, all other provisional attachment orders have been
issued after obtaining due approval from the Commissioner.
27. In the supplementary counter affidavit, while
responding to the statements made in paragraph ‘5’ of the
rejoinder, the respondents have stated that the petitioner has
deliberately misconstrued the fact of debit freeze and provisional
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
19/40
attachments. The relevant part of paragraph ‘8’ of the
supplementary counter affidavit are as under:-
“8.… The petitioner deliberately misconstrued the
fact of debit freeze and provisional attachments. In
provisional attachment, withdrawal of amounts by
the account holder is restricted for the period
specified in the detachment order itself. Further, it is
clarified that the orders issued in the month of
October, 2025 and Order issued on 07.01.2026, both
are Provisional Attachment Orders operating on
different Bank Accounts of the Petitioner and were
issued in continuation of the ongoing investigation
after satisfaction under Section 110(5). The
chronology relied upon by the petitioner does not
invalidate the statutory attachment”.
28. Since Annexure ‘A’ to Annexure ‘RA-2’ provides
the detail of the bank account, date of approval of the provisional
attachment order by the Commissioner, the date of issue, the date
of approval of the extension and date of extension, it would be apt
to reproduce Annexure ‘A’ hereunder for a ready reference:-
NAME OF THE BENEFICIARY ENTITY:- M/S NXTIFY TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.
Name of Beneficiary Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Balance Remarks
the Entity approval of issue of communica approval of extension communica lying in
Fraudulent Bank A/c PAO by the PAO tion of the of PAO tion of Bank A/c of
exporter No. Commissio PAO to M/s extension PAO M/s Nxtify
ner Nxtify of PAO by extension as on
Technologi the order 01.04.2026(
es Commissio Rs.)
ner
Kumar 478006335 02.11.2025 23.10.2025 09.12.2025 18.02.2026 16.04.2026 16.04.2026 Not As per
Enterprises 0136434 – provided as records
Kotak on date total
Mahindra mentioned amount of
Bank above Appx. Rs.
3.53 Cr.
259901328 07.01.2026 07.01.2026 08.01.2026 18.02.2026 30.04.2026 30.04.2026 1,86,765 Has been
805 if transferred
Induslnd from two
Bank fraudulent
166905000 07.01.2026 07.01.2026 08.01.2026 18.02.2026 30.04.2026 30.04.2026 7,804 exporters
336 of bank
ICICI Bank accounts
to M/s
101105953 07.01.2026 07.01.2026 08.01.2026 18.02.2026 30.04.2026 30.04.2026 1,50,35,148 Nxtify
84 of IDFC bank
Bank
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
20/40
409000538 07.01.2026 07.01.2026 08.01.2026 18.02.2026 30.04.2026 30.04.2026 0 accounts
920 of RBL
Bank
002224000 07.01.2026 07.01.2026 08.01.2026 18.02.2026 30.04.2026 30.04.2026 2,60,553
000121 of
Yes Bank
Kentil 166905000 19.11.2025 10.10.2025 09.12.2025 18.02.2026 16.04.2026 16.04.2026 7,175
Technosoft 167 of
(P) Ltd. ICICI Bank 19.11.2025 20.11.2025 09.12.2025 18.02.2026 30.04.2026 30.04.2026
Total 1,54,97,445
29. On facts, it is now crystal clear that during
investigation of the matter in relation to M/s Kumar Enterprises
and M/s. Kentil Technosoft Private Limited, the respondent
authorities issued “debit freeze” order to the banks on various
dates in the month of October 2025. Details in this regard may be
found from Annexure ‘P/6’ series to the writ application. The
communications received from the bank have been placed before
this Court. The specific statements in this regard made in
paragraph ‘10(g)’ of the writ application have been answered by
the respondents in paragraph ‘40’ of their counter affidavit. The
stand of the respondents is that the “debit freeze” of accounts were
done afresh in course of investigation of fraudulent exports done
by different exporters wherein again the petitioner was found
involved in money trail and further, the attachment of bank
accounts were done as per the instructions of Section 110(5) of the
Customs Act, 1962 and not arbitrary.
30. In paragraph ‘41’ of the counter affidavit, the
respondents have taken stand that on the representation submitted
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
21/40
by the petitioner, the petitioner was provided the reasons of such
provisional attachments of bank accounts vide the office letter
dated 17.11.2025. The office letter dated 17.11.2025 has been
brought on record as Annexure ‘R1-2’. We have perused Annexure
‘R1-2’. On a bare reading of the Annexure ‘R1-2’, it appears that
in this letter, an impression has been given that the direction to
attach the bank accounts of the beneficiary i.e. the petitioner, is in
terms of Section 110(5) of the Customs Act by the competent
authority.
31. The respondents have themselves enclosed
Annexure ‘A’, which we have extracted hereinabove. It is evident
that the provisional attachment order dated 10.10.2025 in the
matter of M/s Kentil Technosoft Private Limited and the order
dated 23.10.2025 in the matter of M/s Kumar Enterprises were
issued without approval of the competent authority i.e. the
Commissioner. The respondents have admitted it. If it is so, the
provisional attachment orders and the subsequent order of
extension of these provisional attachment orders would also be
rendered illegal, being in violation of the statutory scheme of
Section 110(5) of the Customs Act.
32. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied on a number of decisions to strengthen his submissions, this
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
22/40
Court would refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra). In this case, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a challenge to the orders
of provisional attachment issued by the respondents against the
appellant under Section 83 of the Himachal Pradesh Goods and
Services Tax Act (in short ‘HPGST Act’). The Hon’ble Supreme
Court embarked on an interpretative journey of unravelling the
substantive and procedural content of the power. The preliminary
issue was whether the High Court was right in concluding that the
provisional attachment could not be challenged in a petition under
Article 226. Section 83 of the HPGST Act permits provisional
attachment once during the pendency of the proceeding under
Section 62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or 74 of the HPGST Act. Section 83 of
the HPGST Act and Section 110(5) of the Customs Act are in pari
materia, therefore, we reproduce both the provisions hereunder:-
“Section 83 of the HPGST Act
“83. Provisional attachment to protect revenue in
certain cases.—(1) Where during the pendency of
any proceedings under Section 62 or Section 63 or
Section 64 or Section 67 or Section 73 or Section 74,
the Commissioner is of the opinion that for the
purpose of protecting the interest of the government
revenue, it is necessary so to do, he may, by order in
writing attach provisionally any property, including
bank account, belonging to the taxable person in such
manner as may be prescribed.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
23/40
(2) Every such provisional attachment shall cease to
have effect after the expiry of a period of one year
from the date of the order made under sub-section
(1).”
Section 110(5) of the Customs Act
“110. Seizure of goods, documents and things.
(1) ...
(2) ...
(3) …
(4) …
3
[(5) Where the proper officer, during any
proceedings under the Act, is of the opinion that for
the purposes of protecting the interest of revenue or
preventing smuggling, it is necessary so to do, he
may, with the approval of the Principal
Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of
Customs, by order in writing, provisionally attach
any bank account for a period not exceeding six
months:
Provided that the Principal Commissioner of
Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period
to a further period not exceeding six months and
inform such extension of time to the person whose
bank account is provisionally attached, before the
expiry of the period so specified.”
33. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed the
judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Proex
Fashion (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 2082 wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has
outlined the statutories stipulated conditions for the invocation of
3. Inserted by Act 29 of 2019, S. 74(ii).
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
24/40
Section 83 of the SGST Act. Paragraph ‘10’ of the judgment has
been briefly taken note of in paragraph ‘35’ of the judgment in
case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra). It has been ultimately
held that the power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue
writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of
fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. An
alternative remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate
case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. In cases
where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may
decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the
High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the
controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a
view would not readily be interfered with.
34. Dealing with the issue of provisional attachment, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has noticed the parliamentary intent
behind Section 83. It is to protect revenue in certain cases. In this
regard, the views expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Radha Krishan Industries (supra) may be found in
paragraph ‘41’ and its subparagraphs, ‘42’, ‘49’ and ‘50’ of the
judgment, which are as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
25/40
“41. Sub-section (1) of Section 83 can be bifurcated
into several parts. The first part provides an insight
on when in point of time or at which stage the power
can be exercised. The second part specifies the
authority to whom the power to order a provisional
attachment is entrusted. The third part defines the
conditions which must be fulfilled to validate the
power or ordering a provisional attachment. The
fourth part indicates the manner in which an
attachment is to be levelled. The final and the fifth
part defines the natureof the property which can be
attached. Each of these special divisions which have
been explained above is for convenience of
exposition. While they are not watertight
compartments, ultimately and together they aid in
validating an understanding of the statute. Each of
the above five parts is now interpreted and explained
below:
41.1. The power to order a provisional attachment is
entrusted during the pendency of proceedings under
any one of six specified provisions : Sections 62, 63,
64, 67, 73 or 74. In other words, it is when a
proceeding under any of these provisions is pending
that a provisional attachment can be ordered.
41.2. The power to order a provisional attachment
has been vested by the legislature in the
Commissioner.
41.3. Before exercising the power, the Commissioner
must be “of the opinion that for the purpose of
protecting the interest of the government revenue, it
is necessary so to do”.
41.4. The order for attachment must be in writing.
41.5. The provisional attachment which is
contemplated is of any property including a bank
account belonging to the taxable person.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
26/40
41.6. The manner in which a provisional attachment
is levied must be specified in the rules made pursuant
to the provisions of the statute.
42. Under sub-section (2) of Section 83, a provisional
attachment ceases to have effect upon the expiry of a
period of one year of the order being passed under
sub-section (1). The power to levy a provisional
attachment has been entrusted to the Commissioner
during the pendency of proceedings under Sections
62, 63, 64, 67, 73 or as the case may be, Section 74.
Section 62 contains provisions for assessment for
non-filing of returns. Section 63 provides for
assessment of unregistered persons. Section 64
contains provisions for summary assessment. Section
67 elucidates provisions for inspection, search and
seizure.
49. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to
emphasise that before the Commissioner can levy a
provisional attachment, there must be a formation of
“the opinion” and that it is necessary “so to do” for
the purpose of protecting the interest of the
government revenue. The power to levy a provisional
attachment is draconian in nature. By the exercise of
the power, a property belonging to the taxable person
may be attached, including a bank account. The
attachment is provisional and the statute has
contemplated an attachment during the pendency of
the proceedings under the stipulated statutory
provisions noticed earlier. An attachment which is
contemplated in Section 83 is, in other words, at a
stage which is anterior to the finalisation of an
assessment or the raising of a demand. Conscious as
the legislature was of the draconian nature of the
power and the serious consequences which emanate
from the attachment of any property including a bank
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
27/40
account of the taxable person, it conditioned the
exercise of the power by employing specific statutory
language which conditions the exercise of the power.
The language of the statute indicates first, the
necessity of the formation of opinion by the
Commissioner; second, the formation of opinion
before ordering a provisional attachment; third the
existence of opinion that it is necessary so to do for
the purpose of protecting the interest of the
government revenue; fourth, the issuance of an order
in writing for the attachment of any property of the
taxable person; and fifth, the observance by the
Commissioner of the provisions contained in the
rules in regard to the manner of attachment. Each of
these components of the statute are integral to a valid
exercise of power. In other words, when the exercise
of the power is challenged, the validity of its exercise
will depend on a strict and punctilious observance of
the statutory preconditions by the Commissioner.
While conditioning the exercise of the power on the
formation of an opinion by the Commissioner that
“for the purpose of protecting the interest of the
government revenue, it is necessary so to do”, it is
evident that the statute has not left the formation of
opinion to an unguided subjective discretion of the
Commissioner. The formation of the opinion must
bear a proximate and live nexus to the purpose of
protecting the interest of the government revenue.
50. By utilising the expression “it is necessary so to
do” the legislature has evinced an intent that an
attachment is authorised not merely because it is
expedient to do so (or profitable or practicable for the
Revenue to do so) but because it is necessary to do
so in order to protect interest of the government
revenue. Necessity postulates that the interest of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
28/40
Revenue can be protected only by a provisional
attachment without which the interest of the Revenue
would stand defeated. Necessity in other words
postulates a more stringent requirement than a mere
expediency. A provisional attachment under Section
83 is contemplated during the pendency of certain
proceedings, meaning thereby that a final demand or
liability is yet to be crystallised. An anticipatory
attachment of this nature must strictly conform to the
requirements, both substantive and procedural,
embodied in the statute and the rules. The exercise of
unguided discretion cannot be permissible because it
will leave citizens and their legitimate business
activities to the peril of arbitrary power. Each of
these ingredients must be strictly applied before a
provisional attachment on the property of an assessee
can be levied. The Commissioner must be alive to the
fact that such provisions are not intended to authorise
Commissioners to make pre-emptive strikes on the
property of the assessee, merely because property is
available for being attached. There must be a valid
formation of the opinion that a provisional
attachment is necessary for the purpose of protecting
the interest of the government revenue.”
35. In the case of Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court was dealing with a writ petition in
which the grievance of the petitioner was over a letter dated
March 1, 2019, issued by office of the Principal Commissioner of
Customs (P) to the Branch Manager, IDFC First Bank, Mumbai.
Paragraph ‘27’ of the judgment contains the facts, which are as
under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
29/40
“27. We take up the first grievance for consideration
at the outset. Ex. A to the writ petition is a letter
dated March 1, 2019 issued from the office of the
Principal Commissioner of Customs (P) to the
Branch Manager, IDFC Bank, Mumbai, stating that
office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs was
investigating a case of misuse of export documents to
claim inadmissible dues, drawback and IGST refund
by M/s. Dunox Trading and Export Private Limited.
Reference was made to the current account of the
petitioner in the said bank. While the branch manager
was called upon to provide certain details of the bank
account he was also requested not to allow any
withdrawal from the said account and operation of
locker without prior permission. This is the only
document on record on the basis of which the bank
account of the petitioner has been effectively frozen.
In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent
No. 1 the only statement made in respect of freezing
of the bank account is in paragraph 26 wherein it is
stated that unfreezing the frozen bank account would
cause huge loss to the Department.”
36. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court found that sub-
section (5) was inserted in Section 110 by the Finance (No.2) Act
No. 2019 with effect from August 1, 2019. Thus, the respondent
authority could not have invoked sub-section (5) of Section 110
while issuing the letter in question on March 1, 2019 for freezing
of the bank account of the petitioner. In paragraph ‘31’ and ‘32’ of
the judgment in the case of Boxster Impex Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
30/40
“31. Even otherwise, we find that the above
provision can only be invoked in the manner
provided therein which can be culled out as under :
(i) The order of attaching the bank account
provisionally shall be passed in writing by a proper
officer ;
(ii) Such an order can be passed during any
proceedings under the Customs Act ;
(iii) Before passing such an order the proper officer
must form an opinion that such attachment of bank
account is necessary for the purposes of protecting
the interest of revenue or for preventing smuggling ;
(iv) Before passing such an order the proper officer
must obtain prior approval of the Principal
Commissioner of Customs or of Commissioner of
Customs ; and
(v) Such provisional attachment shall be for a period
not exceeding six months.
32. As per the proviso the Principal Commissioner
of Customs or Commissioner of Customs can extend
such provisional attachment for a further period not
exceeding six months ; but he must record reasons
for such extension and such extension of period has
to be informed to the person whose bank account is
provisionally attached before expiry of the period so
specified.”
37. In case of Chokshi Arvind Jewellers (supra), the
Hon’ble Bombay High Court has discussed sub-section (5) of
Section 110 of the Customs Act in paragraph ‘36’ to ‘42’ as
under:-
“36. On a bare perusal of the provisions of section
110(5) of the Act, it can be seen that a bank account
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
31/40
can be provisionally attached if the proper officer
forms an opinion that, for the purpose of protecting
the interest of revenue or preventing smuggling, it is
necessary so to do. Further, an order directing
provisional attachment of the bank account has to be
in writing. It is thus, clear that the proper officer has
to form to an opinion that it is necessary to
provisionally attach the bank accounts for the
purpose of protecting the interest of revenue or
preventing smuggling. The key word in the sub-
section is “necessary”.The proper officer must form
an opinion that it is necessary to provisionally attach
the bank account for the aforesaid reasons and not
only expedient to do so. Moreover, the necessity has
to be for the purpose of protecting the interest of
revenue or preventing smuggling and not for any
other purpose.
37. Further, this opinion has to be formed based on
tangible material available with the proper officer.
38. Further, the order in writing directing provisional
attachment of the bank accounts must reflect as to
why the proper officer is of the opinion that it is
necessary to provisionally attach the bank account
for the purpose of protecting the interest of revenue
or preventing smuggling. These reasons must be set
out in the order in writing. Further, the said order in
writing must also disclose the tangible material on
the basis of which the proper officer has formed
such an opinion.
39. The power exercised by the proper officer in
directing provisional attachment of the bank account
of a person is quite drastic or coercive in nature
resulting in attracting civil consequences. If a bank
account of a person is attached, it would certainly
cause severe prejudice to that person. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
32/40
Legislature, whilst enacting the provisions of section
110(5) of the Act was conscious of the severity of
such power and the serious consequences which
would emanate from the provisional attachment of
any property, including a bank account, of a taxable
person, and, therefore, it conditioned the exercise of
the power by employing specific statutory language
of an approval to be sought by the proper officer
from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,
who is a high ranking officer. Thus, such power is
not left to the ipse dixit of the proper officer and any
such decision is required to undergo a rigorous
scrutiny of the Principal Commissioner or the
Commissioner. Each of these components of section
110(5) are integral to a valid exercise of power. In
other words, when the exercise of power is
challenged, the validity of its exercise will depend
on a strict and punctilious observance of the
statutory pre-conditions by the Principal
Commissioner of the Commissioner. While
conditioning the exercise of power on the formation
of an opinion of the Principal
Commissioner/Commissioner that, “for the purpose
of protecting the interest of revenue or preventing
smuggling it is necessary so to do”,it is evident that
the statute has not left formation of the opinion to an
unguided subjective discretion of the proper officer
or for that matter the Principal
Commissioner/Commissioner. The formation of the
opinion must bear a proximate and live nexus to the
purpose of protecting the interest of Government
Revenue and/or preventing smuggling.
40. Further, such provisional attachment is
contemplated during the pendency of certain
proceedings, meaning thereby that a final demand or
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
33/40
liability is yet to be crystallised. Therefore, an
anticipatory attachment of this nature must strictly
conform to the requirements, both substantive and
procedural, embodied in the statute. The exercise of
unguided discretion would not be permissible
because it would leave persons and their legitimate
business activities to the peril of arbitrary power.
41. Each of the ingredients of section 110(5) must be
strictly complied with before the provisional
attachment on the property of an assessee can be
levied. The proper officer must be alive to the fact
that such provisions are not intended to make
preemptive strikes on the property of the assessee,
merely because such property is available for being
attached.
42. Further, considering the drastic nature of this
power, in our view, such an order in writing
directing provisional attachment should be served
not only on the bank but also on the bank account
holder, as, in the absence of such an order in writing
being served on the bank account holder, it will be at
a great disadvantage if he deems fit to challenge
such a provisional attachment.”
38. From the above-mentioned judgments, it is evident
that the provisional attachment orders may be issued only if the
conditions mentioned under sub-section (5) of Section 110 of the
Customs Act are fully complied with. In this case, the respondents
are on record saying that the orders issued in the month of October
2025 and the order issued on 07.01.2026, both are provisional
attachment orders operating on different bank accounts of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
34/40
petitioner and both were issued in continuation of the ongoing
investigation after satisfaction under Section 110(5) of the
Customs Act. So far as the provisional attachment orders dated
07.01.2026 are concerned, those have been issued after obtaining
approval of the Commissioner but the petitioner has shown from
the pleadings that the orders issued to the respondent banks to put
a freeze on the account of the petitioners maintained with (i)
ICICI Bank Account No. 16690500167, (ii) ICICI Bank Account
No. 166905000336), (iii) RBL Bank Account No. 409000538920,
(iv) IDFC First Bank Account No. 10110595384 and (v) Kotak
Mahindra Bank Account No. 2912039178 were put on “debit
freeze” in the month of October 2025 itself. As regards two
accounts i.e. (i) ICICI Bank Account No. 16690500167 and (ii)
Kotak Mahindra Bank Account No. 4780063350136434, the
learned ASG has admitted that even the provisional attachment
orders were issued without approval of the same by the
Commissioner. Thus, this Court would, therefore quash and cancel
the provisional attachment orders which were issued without
obtaining approval of the Commissioner and the subsequent
extension of those orders. Those are hereby quashed.
39. As regards the (i) ICICI Bank Account No.
16690500336, (ii) RBL Bank Account No. 409000538920 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
35/40
(iii) IDFC First Bank Account No. 10110595384, it is stated that
these accounts were put on debit freeze in October, 2025. The
respondents have not denied this fact but they have stated in the
supplementary counter affidavit that the petitioner has deliberately
misconstrued the fact of debit freeze and provisional attachments.
It is the respondents’ clarification that the orders issued in the
month of October 2025 and the order issued on 07.01.2026 both
are provisional attachment orders. If it is so, it was incumbent
upon the respondents to place on record to say in positive words
that the orders issued in the month of October 2025 had the
approval of the Commissioner. No such statement has been made
by the respondents. Save and except to say that the order issued in
the month of October 2025 and the order issued on 07.01.2026,
both are provisional attachment orders, the respondents have not
stated a single word that the orders issued in the month of October
2025 were in writing, containing the reasons and had the approval
of the competent authority. This Court is, therefore, of the
considered opinion that the direction of the respondent to the bank
to put debit freeze on these accounts in the month of October 2025
were not in accordance with sub-section (5) of Section 110 of the
Customs Act, 1962.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
36/40
40. Having said so, a question would arise for
consideration as to whether the order of provisional attachment
issued on 07.01.2026 would be liable to be quashed and cancelled
on this ground alone. We have perused the provisional attachment
order dated 07.01.2026 and 20.11.2025. The orders of provisional
attachment passed on 07.01.2026 reads as under:-
(Since all other provisional attachment orders are identical, therefore,
we are not reproducing all the provisional attachment orders.)
“ Hkkjr ljdkj
lhek “kqYd ¼fuokj.k½ vk;qDrky;
iape eafty] dsUnzh;jktLoHkou] ohjpaniVsyiFk] iVuk&800001
nwjHkk’k&lg&nqjfp=d0612-2504998:; email-cuspatna@nic.in, cushqrprev-patna@gov.in
07-01-2026
To
The Branch Manager,
ICIC Bank,
Patna Branch, Patna.
Sub: - Provisional attachment of the Bank accounts of entities.
Sir/Madam,
1. This office is investigating case of the fraudulent export from
various Land Customs Station (LCS) under this jurisdiction of this Customs
Commissionerate. Prima facie the investigation has shown that these
fraudulent exporters have got refund amount in their bank account on the
basis of fraudulent export. Hence in the interest of revenue these bank
accounts need to be provisionally attached as per section 110 of the Customs
Act, 1962, as follows.
Section 110. Seizure of goods, documents and things
(5) Where the proper officer, during any proceedings under the Act,
is of the opinion that for the purposes of protecting the interest of revenue or
preventing smuggling, it is necessary so to do, he may, with the approval of
the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, by
order in writing, provisionally attach any bank account for a period not
exceeding six months:
PROVIDED that the Principal Commissioner of Customs or
Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and inform
such extension of time to the person whose bank account is provisionally
attached, before the expiry of the period so specified.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
37/40
2. I, therefore, being the proper officer under the powers bestowed
upon me by the Commissioner of Customs, order for provisional
attachment of below mentioned account with immediate effect and till
further orders.
3. Further, you are hereby requested to furnish the bank Statement
of the accounts listed below for the period 01.04.2022 to till date, in both
the excel & pdf format, as it is desired from you under Section 108A of
Customs Act 1962 within a week. The provision is hereby reproduced
below.
[Section 108A. Obligation to furnish information.
(1) Any person, being-
(d) a Banking company within the meaning of clause (a) of section
45A of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; or
Who is responsible for maintaining record of registration or
statement of accounts or holding any other information under any of the
Acts specified above or under any other law for the time being in force,
which is considered relevant for the purposes of this Act, shall furnish such
information to the proper officer in such manner as may be prescribed by
rules made under this Act.
Failing which provisions of Section 108B will be invoked which
relates to penalty for failure to furnish information return.
4. It is further requested, to provide the KYC Documents/Details of
the Account/ Account Holder and introducer of the Account alongwith
bank statement of the accounts listed below for the period 01.04.2022 to
till date.
5. The Bank Account No. & IFSC details are mentioned below:-
Name Bank Account No.
M/s Nxtify Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 166905000336
6. This is issued to local branch of the bank with request to co-
ordinate with concerned branch where the above account pertains and take
suitable measures urgently.
7. Immediate action in the matter will be highly appreciated.
Digitally signed by
Arun Prasad
Date: 07.01.2026
15:40:13
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Customs (P) Hqrs., Patna”
41. On perusal of the provisional attachment order
(Annexure ‘P/1’), this Court finds that it has been passed in a
proceeding initiated against M/s Kumar Enterprises and M/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
38/40
Kentil Technosoft Private Limited. The provisional attachment
order is in writing and it contains the reasons by virtue of which
the proper officer has formed its opinion to order for provisional
attachments of the accounts. These provisional attachment orders
as contained in Annexure ‘P/1’ series do not require any
interference.
42. This would take us to the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that on the expiry of six months’ period
from the date of issuance of the provisional attachment order, the
attachment order shall lose its sanctity unless it is extended before
the expiry of the period of six months, in accordance with law.
One of the extension order placed on the record is being
reproduced hereunder:-
“ Hkkjr ljdkj
lhek “kqYd ¼fuokj.k½ vk;qDrky;
iape eafty] dsUnzh;jktLoHkou] ohjpaniVsyiFk] iVuk&800001
nwjHkk’k&lg&nqjfp=d0612-2504998:; email-cuspatna@nic.in, cushqrprev-patna@gov.in
30-04-2026
To,
The Branch Manager,
ICIC Bank,
Patna Branch
Subject:- Extension of the period of Provisional attachment of
the Bank accounts of fraudulent exporters- reg.
Please refer to this office letter F. No. CUS/SIIB/MISC/720/2025-
Preventive Section-O/o Commissioner-Customs-Preventive-Patna
I/3549116/2025 dated 20.11.2025 wherein the Provisional attachment of the
Bank accounts of fraudulent exporters mentioned below was ordered.
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred to the under
section 110(5) of Customs ACT 1962. Which states and I quote,
Section 110. Seizure of goods, documents and things
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
39/40
(5)where the proper officer, during any proceedings under the Act, is
of the opinion that for the purposes of protecting the interest of revenue or
preventing smuggling, it is necessary so to do, he may, with the approval of
the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, by
order in writing, provisionally attach any bank account for a period not
exceeding six months: PROVIDED that the Principal Commissioner of
Customs or Commissioner of Customs may, for reasons to be recorded in
writing, extend such period to a further period not exceeding six months and
inform such extension of time to the person whose bank account is
provisionally attached, before the expiry of the period so specified.
I, being the proper officer under the powers bestowed upon me by
the Commissioner of Customs, order for further extension of provisional
attachment of below mentioned account after expiry of existing
attachment period for next six months. The bank details of the exporter
are mentioned below:-
Name Bank Account IFSC
No.
Shagun Enterprise 122605001678 ICIC0001226
Nxtify Technologies Pvt Ltd 166905000167 ICIC0001669
MOBASSURE TECHNO SERVICES PVT 103105001513 ICIC0001031
LTD
This is for immediate necessary action please.
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Customs (Prev.) Commissionerate,
Patna
Copy to: M/s Shagun Enterprise / M/s Nxtify Technologies pvt Ltd
(Email: info@nxtify.com / M/s MOBASSURE TECHNO SERVICES PVT
LTD (Email: finance@dealsnprice.com) for information and needful.”
43. It is evident on going through the extension order that
prior to passing of the same, the competent authority has not given
any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No notice to show cause
was issued and in fact, in the extension order, no reason has been
shown by the competent authority. It is because of this, during
pendency of the writ application, the competent authority issued
notice to the petitioner to attend a personal hearing in virtual mode
Patna High Court CWJC No.2517 of 2026 dt.11-09-2026
40/40
and hurriedly passed an order on 6th July, 2026, which has not been
pressed by learned ASG.
44. This Court agrees with the submissions of learned
counsel for the petitioner that Section 110(5) of the Customs Act talks
about pre-decisional hearing and not post-decisional hearing. We
have, therefore, no doubt that the extension orders are bad in law and
those are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the same.
45. We would hasten to add that setting aside of the
extension order(s) covered under paragraph ‘38’ of this judgment
would not come in the way of the department in proceeding with the
pending adjudication and the respondents may, if so advised, proceed
to take steps as may be available to them under the statute to pass
fresh provisional attachment orders and the extension orders where
provisional attachment orders were issued in accordance with law.
46. This writ application is allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 15.07.2026
Uploading Date 11.09.2026
Transmission Date
Disclaimer: Educational and research material only; not legal, tax, investment or professional advice. Verify the controlling court record, statutory version, jurisdiction and subsequent history.