Recovery Attachment case laws

Zubair Enterprises v. Commissioner CGST and Central Excise

In favour of the assessee

Zubair Enterprises approached the High Court of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 18468 of 2025, decided 7 August 2026) seeking de-freezing of bank accounts provisionally attached under Section 83 of the CGST Act. More than one year had elapsed since the attachment order was issued. The court held that provisional attachment ceases by operation of Section 83(2) after the statutory period unless validly extended in accordance with law. Accounts must be released when no fresh valid order exists. The competent authority was directed to record the one-year cap on the file and banks were to de-freeze automatically after expiry. The outcome favoured the assessee, consistent with Delhi High Court practice on Section 83 time limits post Kesari Nandan Mobile. This editorial summary is not legal advice.

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

In favour of the assessee; matter remanded

BKR Services (P) Ltd. challenged garnishee recovery before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Petition No. 21878 of 2026, decided 17 July 2026). Form GST DRC-13 garnishee notices under Section 79 read with Rule 145 targeted the private limited company for GST dues of a deceased person's proprietary concern, treating them as one liability pool. Adjudication had also failed to consider post-death liability under Sections 73 and 93. The court quashed DRC-13 notices, related recovery orders, and DRC-07 demand summaries, restoring proceedings for fresh decision on whether the company or its assets were legally liable for the deceased's dues. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Corporate personality and estate liability must be adjudicated separately. This editorial summary is not legal advice.

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

In favour of the revenue

VRAA and Co., a partnership firm, challenged garnishee action before the High Court of Madras (WP No. 22458 of 2026, decided 23 June 2026). Firm tax dues had crystallised without successful challenge; a partner's personal bank account was attached through Form GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c)(i). The firm argued that Section 83 provisional attachment limits applied. The court held partners remain jointly and severally liable for firm dues and garnishee recovery under Section 79 against a partner's account was permissible once liability was final. Section 83 governed provisional attachment in pending proceedings, not this recovery mode. No ground for writ interference arose. The petition was dismissed in favour of the Assistant Commissioner. This editorial summary is not legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for exact findings.

Sultan Mahmood Khan v. Commercial Tax Officer

Sultan Mahmood Khan, proprietor of M/s I N Enterprises, filed a writ before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (WP No. 11328 of 2026, decided 16 June 2026) against provisional attachment of his ICICI bank account under Section 83 of the CGST Act in Form GST DRC-22 dated 2 May 2024. The attachment had continued beyond the one-year limit prescribed in Section 83(2). Following the Supreme Court in Kesari Nandan Mobile, the court held the order lapsed by operation of law; revenue cannot renew or reissue provisional attachment for the same cause after lapse. Taxpayers need not routinely approach High Courts to enforce the statutory cap when revenue fails to lift attachment. The petition was allowed; the petitioner could operate the account unless other proceedings applied.

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

In favour of the revenue

The Commissioner of Central Tax appealed before the High Court of Karnataka (Writ Appeal No. 1076 of 2023, decided 10 June 2026) against a Single Judge order favouring Sadguru Infratech (P) Ltd. A sub-contractor had filed GST returns belatedly; garnishee action under Section 79 sought recovery of interest on delayed tax payment under Sections 39 and 50. The Single Judge had permitted filing or amendments of returns post 1 July 2017 without insisting on interest, penalty, or limitation and had restrained recovery. The Division Bench held that interest liability arises by statutory mandate under Section 9 read with Section 50 and cannot be waived or reduced in the absence of a specific enabling provision; Section 128 did not apply. The appeal was allowed in favour of the revenue.