Madras High Court
For revenue
High Courts
Rulings of the High Court of Madras, newest first.
3 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
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