GST recovery stayed where prima facie non-compliance with statutory notice and communication requirements required scrutiny.

Interim protection against GST recovery was considered warranted where the recovery notice under DRC-07 referred to an earlier order, but the record initially did not show the accompanying summary of notice or proper communication of the demand. The order was later produced, and the envelope indicated dispatch after the recovery notice, creating a prima facie question whether the statutory notice and recovery procedure had been followed. On that basis, procedural compliance required examination, and recovery was stayed to the extent directed, subject to a deposit condition.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim protection against recovery was warranted on the ground that the demand proceedings appeared to have been taken up without compliance with the statutory procedure under the GST law.

Analysis: The recovery notice under DRC-07 referred to an order dated 30.07.2021, but the record did not initially show the accompanying summary of notice or proper communication of the demand. The order dated 30.07.2021 was later placed on record, and the envelope indicated dispatch on 23.08.2021, after the recovery notice dated 13.08.2021. On this prima facie view, the procedural compliance with the notice and recovery requirements under the GST provisions required examination.

Conclusion: Interim protection was justified, and recovery was stayed to the extent directed, subject to deposit of 10% of the recovery amount.

---