GST demand summary alone cannot support recovery or bank attachment without a corresponding speaking adjudication order.

A GST demand summary uploaded in form GST was stated to be insufficient on its own to sustain coercive recovery or bank account attachment where no corresponding speaking adjudication order under the GST law had been passed. The text notes that a mere summary entry under Rule 142(5) does not create an independently enforceable demand, because enforceable recovery must rest on the substantive order under Section 74 of the Gujarat GST Act or the CGST Act. On that basis, the recovery measures and consequential attachment were treated as lacking legal foundation and were quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether a summary order in GST form could sustain recovery proceedings and bank account attachment in the absence of a detailed adjudication order under the GST law.

Analysis: The summary uploaded in GST form only reflected the demand particulars and did not disclose that any detailed order had in fact been passed. On the record, no corresponding speaking order under Section 74 of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 or the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was . A mere summary entry under Rule 142(5) of the Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 cannot, by itself, create an enforceable demand or justify coercive recovery action. In the absence of the substantive order, the consequential attachment of bank accounts also lacked legal foundation.

Conclusion: The summary order and the consequent recovery and attachment actions could not be sustained and were quashed. Relief was granted in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: A GST demand summary, without a corresponding detailed adjudication order, does not have independent enforceable force and cannot support coercive recovery measures.

---