JUDGMENT M.S. Sanklecha, J. - This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges recovery notices dated 5th March, 2018, 5th April, 2018, 11th April, 2018 and attachment notices dated 11th April, 2018, attaching the flat belonging to the Director of the Petitioner and dated 22nd March, 2018 attaching Bank accounts of the Petitioner''s sister concern M/s. Patankar Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Patankar Hotels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., in RBL Bank, for the dues of the Petitioner. The impugned recovery notice as well as the attachment notices have been issued, consequent to an order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax - Respondent No. 3, confirming a Service Tax of demand of Rs. 25.95 lakhs along with interest thereon and penalty of Rs. 26.01 lakhs. 2. It is the case of the Petitioner that the order dated 14th October, 2011 of Respondent No. 3 was received by the Petitioner only on 25th April, 2018. Immediately thereafter, Petitioner had filed an appeal on 16th May, 2018 under Section 85 of Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) on 16th May, 2018 before the Respondent No. 4 Commissioner (Appeals). This, after complying with the requirement depositing 7.5% of the Service Tax demanded in terms of Section 35 of Central Excise Act, 1944 as make applicable to Service Tax matters under Section 83 of the Act. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned notices are without jurisdiction as there is a stay of the recovery under Section 35F of the Act. In support, reliance was placed upon C.B.D. & T. Circular No. 984, dated 16th September, 2014 and C.B.D. & T. Circular No. 1053, dated 10th March, 2017. 3. As against the above, it is the case of the Respondents that the Petitioner was served with a copy of the order dated 14th October, 2011 in 2011 itself. Therefore, the impugned recovery notices as well as the attachment of bank accounts, were justified as the appeal was not filed within the statutory period of limitation to file the appeal. 4. When the Petition first came up for consideration before us, we were of the view that the issue of the date of the receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 by the Petitioner, is the crux of the dispute. 4. When the Petition first came up for consideration before us, we were of the view that the issue of the date of the receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 by the Petitioner, is the crux of the dispute. It is on the basis of determining the date of receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by Respondent No. 3, that the issue of the impugned notices being within or outside the jurisdiction, will follow. However, as this is disputed question of fact, we were of the view, it would be appropriate that Respondent No. 4 - Commissioner (Appeals) who was already seized of the Petitioner''s appeal, should decide the issue and till then, we were not inclined to interfere. It is on the basis of the above facts that on 5th October, 2018, we were informed that the hearing of the Petitioner''s appeal had already been concluded on 3rd October, 2018 by the Commissioner (Appeals). We were further informed by the Counsel for the Revenue, on instructions, that the order on appeal would be passed by Respondent No. 4 on or before 11th October, 2018. Therefore, Petition was adjourned to 12th October, 2018 after recording the above facts. 5. This Petition reached hearing yesterday i.e. 23rd October, 2018. At that time, at the request of the Learned Counsel for the Revenue, Petition was adjourned to today. 6. Today, Mr. Jetly, Learned Counsel for the Revenue states that the statements made on 5th October, 2018 that the order on the Petitioner''s appeal would be passed on or before 11th October, 2018, was on account of certain mis-communication between the office of the Respondent No. 4 and his Advocate/Counsel. It is submitted that the statement made on 5th October, 2018 to this Court that on instructions, the order in appeal would be passed before 11th October, 2018, was a mistake on the part of the Advocate, appearing for the Respondent. It is further stated that the Respondent No. 4, the Commissioner (Appeals), did not have any knowledge that the order has to be passed on or before 11th October, 2018. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue offer their apology for the mistake. We accept the same. However, we would expect them to be more careful while making statement to the Court, on instructions of the Officer of the Revenue. 7. The Learned Counsel for the Revenue offer their apology for the mistake. We accept the same. However, we would expect them to be more careful while making statement to the Court, on instructions of the Officer of the Revenue. 7. Be that as it may, we enquired of Mr. Jetly, that how much more time would the Respondent No. 6 - Commissioner (Appeals) take to pass an order on appeal which is finally heard on 3rd October, 2018. This time, on instructions of Respondent No. 6 -Commissioner who is present in Court, Mr. Jetly states that he would need at-least a period of three weeks from today to pass an order on which hearing was completed on 3rd October, 2018. 8. This is a case where, admittedly, there is a disputed issue of the date on which the order dated 14th October, 2011 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Service Tax-Respondent No. 3 was received by the Petitioner. It is the date of receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 which will decide the jurisdiction of the impugned recovery and attachment notices. 9. In matters such as this, where the Respondent had attached the bank account of the Petitioner''s sister concern for the recovery of the Petitioner''s dues, the least that is expected of the Respondent would be to decide the preliminary issue of the date of the receipt of the order dated 14th October, 2011 as expeditiously as possible. This, as the attachment of bank account would cause prejudice to any person, carrying on business as it would cripple its capacity to do business. 10. In the above circumstances, it would be appropriate that the attachment notice dated 22nd March, 2018 addressed to the Chief Manager, RBL Bank, attaching the Bank Account of the Petitioner''s Bank Account, stand vacated. This by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 22nd March, 2018. However, we do not disturb the impugned recovery notices or attachment of the flat belonging to the Petitioner''s Director. This, attachment would protect the interest of the Revenue. 11. At this stage, in the midst of our dictation of this order, Mr. This by quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 22nd March, 2018. However, we do not disturb the impugned recovery notices or attachment of the flat belonging to the Petitioner''s Director. This, attachment would protect the interest of the Revenue. 11. At this stage, in the midst of our dictation of this order, Mr. Jetly, Learned Counsel for the Revenue opposes the grant of any relief to the Petitioner on the ground that the impugned notice dated 22nd March, 2018 attaches the Bank Account of the Petitioner''s sister concern namely - M/s. Patankar Hotel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Patankar Hospitality Pvt., Ltd. Thus, the Petitioner can have no locus to file this Petition and the persons, if any, aggrieved, are M/s. Patankar Hotel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Patankar Hospitality Pvt., Ltd., who alone could file a Petition making a grievance of attachment. 12. We find this submission rather strange. The impugned notice dated 22nd March, 2018 addressed to the Chief Manager, RBL Bank, is premised as recorded therein that the notice of attachment has been issued for recovery of tax dues of the Petitioner. Thus, the basis of the impugned attachment notice is consequent to the Petitioner not paying its taxes. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled to file this Petition. 13. We would have expected the Respondent themselves to withdraw the attachment of bank account of an independent party for recovery of dues payable by the Petitioner. In fact, this is one more reason according to us for the impugned notice being completely without jurisdiction. Therefore, we find no merit in the above submission on the part of the Respondent. 14. Petition disposed of in the above terms. No order as to cost. 15. In view of the dismissal of the Petition itself, nothing survives in the Chamber Summons and the same has also been disposed of as infructuous.