High Court of Madras
Noordeen Enterprises v. Additional Director General Directorate of GST Intelligence
For assessee
W.P. NOS. 6704 & 6705 OF 2023
High Court of Madras
W.P. NOS. 6704 & 6705 OF 2023
Where letters were issued to customers of respective petitioner directing diversion of amounts payable to petitioners towards alleged GST dues before any order-in-original determining liability was passed, such pre-assessment garnishee actions were invalid and unsustainable, with recovery only possible under section 79(1)(c) once liability was crystallized by order-in-original
Section 79, read with section 83, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.
Members
The background, the issue before the court and the reasoning behind the decision are free for members — along with the professional discussion on this ruling.
Free to join. No card required.
Already a member? Sign in
Madras High Court
Where bank accounts were provisionally attached by Commissioner in February 2022 and no interim orders were secured during writ appeals, such attachments lapsed automatically after one year as per legal precedent, rendering the appeals infructuous since authority could not renew the attachment in absence of enabling provision
Madras High Court
Where assessee obtained interim stay against recovery measures initiated following assessment, such stay order only suspended recovery action and did not affect prior blocking of electronic credit ledger, meaning amounts in electronic credit ledger could not be debited for recovery during validity of stay, but order itself did not unfreeze or impact pre-existing ledger blockage. GST: Where electronic credit ledger was blocked after assessment for recovery of dues, such negative blocking fell within recovery modes under Section 79, as its wide ambit covers deduction from money or goods, garnishee action, distraint and sale, and recovery with Collector or Magistrate assistance, whereas Rule 86A deals only with provisional restriction before liability determination, so plea against negative blocking under Section 79 was rejected
Delhi High Court
Where provisional attachment of bank accounts was ordered under section 83 and one year had lapsed since issuance, attachment ceased by operation of law and accounts were required to be de-frozen, with competent authority to record the one- year cap and banks to de-freeze accounts automatically after expiry absent a fresh valid order