Madras High Court
For revenue
Case-law directory
Every ruling, in plain sight.
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
Case-law directory
Search and filter tax rulings from the Supreme Court, the High Courts, the GST Appellate Tribunal and the advance-ruling authorities.
10 rulings found
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
Bombay High Court
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 Court
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
Karnataka High Court
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
Madras High Court
Where company failed to pay self-assessed liability reported in GSTR-1 and went into liquidation, and recovery from company was not possible, joint and several liability was fastened on directors during default unless they proved absence of negligence; so attachment of director’s bank account by garnishee process for recovery of company dues was justified and did not warrant interference at this stage. GST: Where partnership firm’s bank accounts were attached to recover arrears of a company under director liability because a partner was also director of defaulting company at relevant period, subsequent changes in partnership were irrelevant and close family ties among promoters and partners justified action, so firm’s challenge to garnishee communications was not sustainable and writ was dismissed GST: Where one company's bank account was attached for recovery of another company's arrears, given common promoters and directorship swaps among family members across entities and evidence suggesting incorporation of petitioner aimed at evasion, lifting of corporate veil was warranted and interference with garnishee attachment was unwarranted, leading to dismissal of writ petitions
Madras High Court
Where a firm’s unchallenged tax dues had crystallised and a partner’s account was attached through a garnishee notice issued under Section 79(1)(c)(i), action against the partner’s bank account was permissible since partners are liable for firm’s dues, and challenge based on Section 83 provisional attachment was unfounded, hence no ground for interference arose
Telangana High Court
Recovery of GSTR-1/GSTR-3B mismatch as self-assessed tax under Explanation to Section 75(12) cannot be initiated directly under Section 79 without first issuing DRC-01B notice under Rule 88C or considering taxpayer's response; consequently, such garnishee proceedings were to be set aside
Karnataka High Court
Where sub-contractor filed GST returns belatedly and GST authorities initiated garnishee action for recovery of interest on delayed payment, Single Judge's direction permitting filing or amendments of returns post 01.07.2017 without insisting on interest, penalty or limitation and restraining recovery was unsustainable since liability to interest arises by statutory mandate and cannot be waived or reduced in absence of specific provision GST: Where a sub-contractor executed works under contracts entered before GST rollout, reimbursement of incremental GST liability due to regime change arose solely between contracting parties and could not bind tax authorities, and statutory provisions for levy and collection of GST could not be altered by contractual terms, making any reimbursement direction enforceable only against employer and not against tax authorities
Telangana High Court
Where department prematurely recovered entire confirmed GST demand from petitioner's bank before expiry of second appeal period and subsequently re- credited amount to e-cash ledger, dispute being limited to refund to bank versus e- cash credit, petitioner was granted liberty to apply for refund and application was to be decided expeditiously in accordance with law
Madras High Court
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