TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the GST attachment proceedings against the petitioner, a former director of a private company, could be sustained without prior notice or hearing, and whether recovery could be invoked against him under the GST recovery and director-liability provisions.
Analysis: The recovery arose from tax dues of the company for a defined period, but the petitioner's case was that his DIN had been disqualified, he had ceased participating in the company's affairs, and a new director had been appointed during the relevant period. The recovery mechanism under section 79 of the Maharashtra Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits coercive recovery from a person liable to pay tax, while section 89 fastens liability on directors of a private company only for the relevant period and only after the officer reaches satisfaction that the statutory conditions for fastening liability are met. The attachment orders were passed without issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording him an opportunity of hearing. In these circumstances, the attachment of his bank account and immovable property was held to be unsupported by the statutory framework and violative of constitutional protection of property.
Conclusion: The attachment proceedings and the consequential bank notice were held unsustainable and were quashed, and the petitioner obtained relief.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
