GST recovery garnishee notice upheld where assessment was unchallenged and partner liability for firm dues remained relevant.

A GST recovery communication sent to a bank under Section 79(1)(c) was treated as a garnishee notice linked to a crystallised tax demand, not as a provisional attachment under Section 83. The High Court found no basis for writ interference because the assessee had not challenged the original assessment order, and partners of a partnership firm remain liable for firm dues. It also rejected the objection based on a partner's resignation, noting the bank account was connected with the firm's tax liability during the relevant period. The writ petition was dismissed and no relief was granted under Article 226.

---

---

Issues: Whether a garnishee notice issued to a bank under the GST recovery provisions was liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, and whether the objection based on alleged provisional attachment and the partner's resignation from the firm was sustainable.

Analysis: The writ petition was filed by the partnership firm in respect of recovery proceedings relating to the firm's tax liability for the relevant financial year. The communication to the bank was issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the GST enactments pursuant to crystallisation of the tax demand, and not as a provisional attachment under Section 83. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged the original assessment order and that partners of a partnership firm remain personally liable for the firm's dues. Since the impugned action concerned the bank account of a partner linked to the firm's liability, no infirmity was found in the recovery notice.

Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, and no interference was warranted under Article 226.

Ratio Decidendi: A garnishee notice issued under the GST recovery provisions against a bank account connected with the firm's tax liability is not liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction where the underlying demand is unchallenged and the partner concerned was liable for the firm's dues during the relevant period.

---