Recovery & attachment — tax 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

Madras High Court25 Aug 2026

For revenue

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

Madras High Court7 Jul 2026

For revenue

CBIGS Apparels and Jewels v. Joint Commissioner

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 Court23 Jun 2026

For revenue

VRAA and Co. v. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

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

Karnataka High Court10 Jun 2026

For revenue

Commissioner of Central Tax v. Sadguru Infratech (P.) Ltd

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