Court quashes garnishee orders over tax discrepancies, emphasizes procedural compliance.

The court quashed the garnishee orders issued by respondent No.1 due to discrepancies in service tax payments by the petitioner. The court found the initiation of recovery proceedings without resolving objections or issuing a show cause notice for the specific amount improper. The petitioner was directed to respond to the objections within two weeks, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedure and legal requirements in recovery proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to garnishee orders dated 29.03.2016 and 22.05.2018 issued by respondent No.1. Discrepancies in service tax payments, objections raised by Audit Wing, initiation of recovery proceedings, justification of garnishee orders under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a private limited company providing taxable services, challenged garnishee orders issued by respondent No.1 regarding alleged short payment of service tax. The Audit Wing identified discrepancies in service tax payments amounting to Rs. 38,66,902 during the period from April 2012 to March 2014. The petitioner contested these objections, explaining that the tax was correctly declared under CENVAT credit details. Although a show cause notice was issued for other objections, no demand was raised for the alleged short payment. Recovery proceedings were initiated based on this discrepancy, leading to the writ petition.

The petitioner argued that the garnishee orders were unjustifiable and lacked legal authority. The respondent-Revenue sought to justify the orders under Section 87 of the Finance Act, 1994, which allows for recovery of amounts due to the Central Government. However, the court noted that the objections raised by the Audit Wing were still pending adjudication, with a show cause notice issued for other discrepancies but not for the alleged short payment. Without resolving these objections or issuing a show cause notice for the specific amount in question, initiating recovery proceedings through garnishee orders was deemed improper and not in compliance with the Finance Act.

Consequently, the court quashed the impugned garnishee orders dated 29.03.2016 and 22.05.2018. The petitioner was directed to respond to the objections related to the alleged short payment of Rs. 38,66,902 within two weeks, after which respondent No.1 would make a decision in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the need for proper procedure and adherence to legal requirements in recovery proceedings under the Finance Act, 1994.

---