Garnishee recovery under VAT law cannot compel banks to debit dealer accounts without a debtor-creditor nexus.

Section 44 of the Gujarat VAT Act operates as a garnishee-style recovery provision and applies only where the person addressed holds money due to or for the dealer. In the absence of a debtor-creditor nexus between the banks and the dealer, the department cannot require banks to debit the dealer's accounts and remit amounts to the State treasury. Coercive recovery should also not be pursued in a manner that forecloses pending appellate remedies. The impugned bank recovery notices were held unsustainable and quashed, and the pending appeals were directed to be heard and decided on their own merits expeditiously.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notices issued to the banks under section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for recovery of alleged tax dues from the writ applicant's bank accounts were legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 44 was treated as a garnishee-type recovery provision, meant to operate where the person addressed holds monies due to or for the dealer. The Court held that, in the absence of a debtor-creditor relationship between the banks and the dealer, the department could not require the banks to debit the petitioner's accounts and remit the specified sums to the State treasury. The Court also noted that recovery action should not be pursued coercively in a manner that forecloses pending appellate remedies, particularly where appeals were already admitted and were awaiting consideration on merits.

Conclusion: The impugned bank recovery notices were unsustainable and were quashed, with a direction that the pending appeals be heard and decided on their own merits within the stipulated time.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the recovery action through the impugned notices was set aside, while the appellate proceedings were directed to be concluded expeditiously.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 44 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax Act, 2003 can be invoked only in the nature of garnishee recovery against a person holding monies due to the dealer, and not to direct banks to part with a dealer's funds in the absence of the necessary debtor-creditor nexus and proper legal basis for coercive recovery.

---