AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1319 OF 2008 Sanija Stonecrafts Pvt. Ltd. .... Petitioners Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. Shyam Mehta i/b Apte & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. D.K. Kamwal for respondents 1, 2 and 3. Mr. Amit Shete for respondent 4. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & J.P. DEVDHAR, JJ. DATED : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. The petitioners have impugned in this petition Show Cause Notice dated 20/2/2008 and Order dated 10/4/2008 passed by respondent 2 under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that the acquisition of the premises by the petitioners at 296, Perin Nariman Street, Ground floor, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 is void and Order dated 22/5/2008 passed by respondent 3 purporting to attach the said premises. AJN 2 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at some length. Heavy reliance is placed by learned counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tax Recovery Officer II, Sadar, Nagpur v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade (dead) through Shobha Ravindra Nemiwant, (1998) 6 SCC 658 and the judgment of this court in Ms. Ruchi Mehta & Ors. v. Union of ndia & Ors., (2008) 214 CTR (Bom) 107. Learned counsel contended that if the Department desires to have the transaction of transfer declared void under Section 281, the Department being in the position of a creditor will have to file a suit for a declaration that the transaction of transfer is void under Section 281 of the Income Tax Act. 3. In view of this settled position of law, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 makes a statement that respondents 1 to 3 will file a suit in the appropriate court within a period of eight weeks from today. This statement is accepted and in the light of the aforesaid judgments, the impugned Order dated 10/4/2008 is quashed and set aside. However, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, we direct that the AJN 3 attachment shall continue to operate for a period of 12 weeks from today so as to enable respondents 1 to 3 to obtain appropriate orders from the appropriate court. We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the case. The petition is disposed of in the aforestated terms. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [J.P. DEVDHAR, J.]