High Court of Karnataka23 July 2026

Padmavati Engineerings v. State of Karnataka Department of Finance

For assessee

WRIT PETITION NO.104670 OF 2026 (T-RES)

The ruling in brief

Where assessee was unaware of any tax demand leading to attachment of bank account without prior hearing, such recovery action was prima facie unsustainable as opportunity of hearing is a mandatory procedural requirement; so communication effecting attachment was to be kept in abeyance and attachment could not operate until hearing requirement was complied with

Provisions considered

Section 79, read with section 75, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Karnataka Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017

Related rulings

Madras High Court25 Aug 2026

For revenue

Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions v. Assistant Commissioner Coimbatore-I Division

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

Bombay High Court5 Aug 2026

For assesseeRemanded

BVG India Ltd. v. Union of India

Where garnishee proceedings and recovery notices were initiated for interest on delayed payment despite petitioner’s pending representations disputing interest liability and computation, and no decision on these representations was made by authority, matter was required to be decided by passing a reasoned order on aforesaid representations, until then, no further recovery steps could be taken

Karnataka High Court17 Jul 2026

For assesseeRemanded

BKR Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

DRC-13 garnishee notices could not be issued against a private limited company, distinct from deceased’s proprietary concern, for recovery of latter’s GST dues; as adjudication orders also failed to consider post-death liability, DRC-13 notices, orders and DRC-07 summaries were quashed, with proceedings restored for fresh decision. GST: GST adjudication orders were quashed where, despite sole proprietor’s death being intimated, authorities failed to examine applicability of Section 93(1)(a)/(b) before proceeding against alleged legal heirs; objection to multiple SCNs for same period was left open for consideration after detailed replies, with proceedings restored for fresh decision

Related rulings

Madras High Court25 Aug 2026

For revenue

Padmavati Engineerings v. State of Karnataka Department of Finance

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Padmavati Engineerings v. State of Karnataka Department of Finance

The ruling in brief

Provisions considered

Read the full analysis

Read the full analysis

Zigma Machinery & Equipment Solutions v. Assistant Commissioner Coimbatore-I Division

BVG India Ltd. v. Union of India

BKR Services (P.) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka