Court Sets Aside Recovery Notices for Violating Stay Order

The Court found the recovery notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service Tax, attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner-company, to be unsustainable as they violated the Court's earlier directive to refrain from coercive recovery actions until the stay application was decided by CESTAT. The Court emphasized the need for the Revenue to seek permission before taking such steps, regardless of any liberty granted by CESTAT. The recovery notices were set aside, the writ petition was allowed, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs, underscoring the importance of complying with court orders in recovery proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to recovery notices issued by Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service Tax attaching bank accounts of petitioner-company.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the challenge to recovery notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Excise & Service Tax, attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner-company. The petitioner had previously approached the Court through a writ petition related to an order-in-original subject to appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). A Division Bench of the Court had directed the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery until the stay application was decided by CESTAT. Despite this, the Revenue proceeded with attaching the bank accounts without prior notice to the petitioner. The Court found this action to be in direct violation of its earlier direction and deemed the recovery notices unsustainable.

The Court noted that the stay application was still pending before CESTAT, and the Revenue should have sought permission from the Court before taking coercive steps. The liberty granted by CESTAT did not override the Court's directive in the writ petition. As a result, the recovery notices dated 5-3-2014 were set aside as being unjustifiable. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner should proceed with the stay application hearing before CESTAT without seeking further adjournment.

Ultimately, the writ petition was allowed, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed without any order as to costs. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to court directives and seeking appropriate permissions before taking coercive recovery actions, especially when related matters are pending before higher tribunals.

---