TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>GST catering service provider fails to stop garnishee proceedings for Rs.35 lakh tax liability despite seeking installment relief under Section 80</h1> The AP HC dismissed a GST-registered catering service provider's petition challenging garnishee proceedings for Rs.35,59,067 in alleged short-paid tax. ... Attachment and payment alleged to have been short-paid by the petitioner - request for grant of monthly installments, has not been considered and that garnishee proceedings, dated 15.04.2025, which had already been issued was being pressed - HELD THAT:- In view of the admission of the petitioner that it is liable to pay the aforesaid sum of Rs.35,59,067/-, it would not be appropriate for this Court to intervene against the garnishee proceedings, dated 15.04.2025. However, the non-disposal of the representation of the petitioner for equal monthly instalments, dated 26.05.2025, would certainly affect the interest of the petitioner apart from the fact that it is also the duty of the 2nd respondent to consider such applications at the earliest. This Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation of the petitioner, dated 26.05.2025, for grant of 24 equal monthly installments, for clearing the aforesaid dues of the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, per Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, addressed a petition by a GST-registered catering service petitioner whose premises were inspected, leading to a notice dated 15.04.2025 for attachment and payment of Rs.35,59,067/- alleged as short-paid tax. The petitioner admitted liability and sought relief under Section 80 of the GST Act, 2017, requesting 24 equal monthly installments via a representation dated 26.05.2025, having paid Rs.2 lakhs as bonafides.The petitioner challenged the continuation of garnishee proceedings despite this request. The Court held that since the petitioner admitted the tax liability, intervention against the garnishee order was inappropriate. However, the Court emphasized the duty of the 2nd respondent to expeditiously consider the installment application, noting that delay 'would certainly affect the interest of the petitioner.'Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed with a direction to the 2nd respondent to decide on the petitioner's representation for installment payment within three weeks of receipt of the order. No costs were awarded, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
