TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1061
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Writ Petition is filed questioning the notice dt.05.02.2026 issued under Section 79(1)(c) of APGST Act, 2017, through which the 5th respondent-Bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,54,108/-, which is payable by the writ petitioner towards its tax dues. 2. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Tax Authorities, without initiating action of adjudication as provided for under Sections 73 or 74, the impugned notice under Section 79 could not have been issued. He would further submit that before issuing notice under Section 79, the proper officer did not get authorization from the competent authority to initiate such action. 3. For proper appreciation of the case of the petitioner, it is relevant to extract Secti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is issued to a post office, banking company or an insurer, it shall not be necessary to produce any pass book, deposit receipt, policy or any other document for the purpose of any entry, endorsement or the like being made before payment is made, notwithstanding any rule, practice or requirement to the contrary; (iii) in case the person to whom a notice under sub-clause (i) has been issued, fails to make the payment in pursuance thereof to the Government, he shall be deemed to be a defaulter in respect of the amount specified in the notice and all the consequences of this Act or the rules made there under shall follow; (iv) the officer issuing a notice under sub-clause (i) may, at any time, amend or revoke such notice or ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the rules to be made in this behalf, distrain any movable or immovable property belonging to or under the control of such person, and detain the same until the amount payable is paid; and in case, any part of the said amount payable or of the cost of the distress or keeping of the property, remains unpaid for a period of thirty days next after any such distress, may cause the said property to be sold and with the proceeds of such sale, may satisfy the amount payable and the costs including cost of sale remaining unpaid and shall render the surplus amount, if any, to such person; (e) the proper officer may prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount due from such person and send it to the Collector of the district in w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the amount due to the Central Government and State Government, the amount to be credited to the account of the respective Governments shall be in proportion to the amount due to each such Government. [Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, the word person shall include "distinct persons" as referred to in sub-section (4) or, as the case may be, sub-section (5) of section 25]" 4. A perusal of the said provision, it is evident that no authorization is required. Further, the said provision will be pressed into service, in order to recover the tax dues of a registered person under the GST Act. In the case on hand, the learned Government Pleader for Commercial Taxes would submit that, the respondent authorities have passed A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der challenge was issued by the proper officer as per the Gazette referred to herein above. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that, the 4th respondent is not authorized to issue notice under challenge does not merit consideration. 7. The impugned notice is questioned on yet another ground that before issuing the same, the petitioner was not put on notice. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Benguluru in WP No. 35441 of 2024 in the case of "SJR Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd., Vs. the Superintendent of Central Taxes and another". He would further submit that following this judgment, High Court of Karnataka pas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Courts have held that without determining the actual tax, the authorities could not have proceeded under Section 79. In that view of the matter, the Courts have quashed notice issued under Section 79 by granting liberty to the authorities to adjudicate the actual tax liability. The facts of the case on hand are entirely different and therefore the judgments relied on by the counsel for the petitioner would not come to his rescue. 11. As already noted supra, the 4th respondent passed Assessment Order dt.17.01.2025 against the petitioner and the same has attained finality. In such circumstances, in order to recover the tax dues from the petitioner, the 4th respondent issued notice under challenge, in view of the fact that the petitione....