TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 recovery notice challenged successfully with account unfreezing ordered upon tax deposit within thirty days</h1> <h3>M. Velusamy Versus The State Tax Officer, The Branch Manager, Indian Bank, Manapparai</h3> The Madras HC disposed of a petition challenging a GST recovery notice (DRC 13) where the petitioner claimed business closure in January 2023 and ... Challenge to recovery notice in GST DRC 13 - closure of business as early as on January 2023 - unaware of the notice that preceded the impugned Assessment Order - HELD THAT:- This Court is inclined to direct the second respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's account, subject to the petitioner depositing entire tax due, without interest and penalty within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In case sufficient amount of balance is lying in the petitioner's account, the second respondent shall transfer the amount to the credit of the first respondent towards deposit, without prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the de nova proceedings - the petitioner is permitted to file a reply to the Notice in DRC 01, dated 25.11.2024 by treating the impugned Assessment Order, dated 17.02.2025 as addendum to the same. Petition disposed off. The Madras High Court, through Justice C. Saravanan, disposed of the writ petition challenging the GST recovery notice (DRC 13 dated 09.06.2023) at admission stage with consent. The petitioner, who had closed business in January 2023 and claimed non-receipt of the Assessment Order, sought relief against the freezing of his bank account by the second respondent.The Court directed the second respondent to de-freeze the petitioner's account on condition that the petitioner deposits the entire tax due 'without interest and penalty' within 30 days. If sufficient funds exist, the bank shall transfer the amount to the first respondent as deposit, 'without prejudice the rights of the petitioner in the de nova proceedings.'The petitioner was permitted to file a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 25.11.2024, treating the impugned Assessment Order dated 17.02.2025 as an addendum. The first respondent was mandated to pass fresh orders on merits 'as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months' after compliance. Failure to comply would entitle the first respondent to proceed as if the writ petition was dismissed 'in limine.'The petition was disposed of with no costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
