https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424010 The HC addressed a challenge to Section 16(4) of the GST Act regarding bank account freezing. The petitioner contested the coercive recovery measure, citing infringement of rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A, and argued that appeal remedies under Section 112 were unavailable due to the absence of a GST council in Bihar. The court declined to grant interim relief by staying the impugned order, as this would effectively suspend Section 16(4). Instead, the court directed that the proprietor's saving account would be de-attached only if the petitioner paid the full liability amount pending the writ application's outcome. en-us Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 16:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424010 The HC addressed a challenge to Section 16(4) of the GST Act regarding bank account freezing. The petitioner contested the coercive recovery measure, citing infringement of rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 300A, and argued that appeal remedies under Section 112 were unavailable due to the absence of a GST council in Bihar. The court declined to grant interim relief by staying the impugned order, as this would effectively suspend Section 16(4). Instead, the court directed that the proprietor's saving account would be de-attached only if the petitioner paid the full liability amount pending the writ application's outcome. Case-Laws GST Wed, 15 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424010