Madras High Court
For assessee
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.
9 rulings found
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
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
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
Madras High Court
Where petitioner’s bank account was provisionally attached under Section 83 and remained frozen beyond statutory one-year period, as limitation in Section 83(2) requires cessation of such attachment after one year, continued freezing was impermissible and attachment was set aside, allowing petitioner to operate account
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
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 provisional attachment of bank account under section 83 continued beyond one year from order date, such attachment lapsed by operation of law and petitioner could operate bank account, since after expiry of statutorily limited period, no fresh provisional attachment on same cause could be issued and approaching High Courts was unnecessary for lifting such order
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