https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784393 Recovery and bank attachment were challenged on the ground that statutory proceedings and adjudication were initiated against a different company, a separate juristic entity, and not against the petitioner. The HC held that, since the show-cause notice and adjudication order were issued only to the other entity, the petitioner could not be fastened with its dues absent any garnishee relationship or liability to pay that entity; common directorship was insufficient to justify lifting the corporate veil, which was impermissible on these facts. Consequently, the impugned recovery/attachment order was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the authority on the specified date without further notice. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Jan 2026 08:03:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784393 Recovery and bank attachment were challenged on the ground that statutory proceedings and adjudication were initiated against a different company, a separate juristic entity, and not against the petitioner. The HC held that, since the show-cause notice and adjudication order were issued only to the other entity, the petitioner could not be fastened with its dues absent any garnishee relationship or liability to pay that entity; common directorship was insufficient to justify lifting the corporate veil, which was impermissible on these facts. Consequently, the impugned recovery/attachment order was quashed, the writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the authority on the specified date without further notice. Case-Laws GST Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784393