M/S. S.K.R. Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central Tax
Original PDF →Facts
M/s. S.K.R. Constructions (Petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the garnishee notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax (First Respondent) to the State Bank of India (Sixth Respondent) on December 24, 2025. This notice was issued for the recovery of Service Tax and interest due as per an Order-in-Original No. 2112024 (ST) dated February 13, 2024, purportedly passed by the Additional Commissioner (Third Respondent) for the period April 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. The Petitioner's primary contention was that the Order-in-Original had not been served upon them, making the subsequent recovery steps arbitrary and illegal. The Petitioner sought to set aside the garnishee notice and requested a direction for the service of the Order-in-Original.
Held
The Court noted that the Petitioner's primary grievance was the non-service of the Order-in-Original. The Revenue, however, contended that the order was indeed communicated via email on April 25, 2024, to the Petitioner's registered email ID, along with Panchanama proceedings. The Petitioner's counsel, after obtaining instructions, sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to take appropriate steps against the impugned order within four weeks. The Court granted this liberty. Furthermore, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner for a period of four weeks from the date of the order, pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
Key Issues
1. Whether the garnishee notice issued under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017, is arbitrary, capricious, and illegal when the underlying Order-in-Original has not been served on the Petitioner? (Question of law) Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner argued that initiating coercive recovery steps, including issuing a garnishee notice to their bank, without first serving the Order-in-Original to them, is illegal and violates principles of natural justice. They contended that non-service of the order prevented them from understanding the basis of the demand and from challenging it. They relied on the general principle that orders affecting a party must be communicated to that party. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue, through the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, stated that the Order-in-Original dated February 13, 2024, was communicated to the Petitioner via email on April 25, 2024, along with Panchanama proceedings dated June 3, 2024, to the Petitioner's registered email ID.
Sections Cited
Section 79(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER: Heard Mr. G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, leamed Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) appearing for respondent Nos.l to 4 \ 2. The writ petition pertains to order-in-original dated 13.02.2024 passed in relation to the Assessment Year 2016-17 under the Finance Act, 1994, pursuant to which a garnishee notice under Draft Form GST DRC-I3 was issued on24.12.2025,
which is also under challenge. The petitioner has taken a number of grounds including that the order was not communicated to it.
Learned Senior standing counsel for GBIC, upon instructions contained in Memo dated 18.02.2026, stated that the order-in-original dated 13.02.2024 was c:ommunicated vide emall dated 25.04.2024 to the registered email ID of the petitioner along with Panchanama proceedings dated 03.06.2024. 4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner had taken time on previous date to obtain instructions. Today, upon instructions, he prays that the matter may be disposed of u'ith liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law against ttre order impugned within a period of 4 weeks.
The petitioner is at liberty to do so, as may be permissible in law. For a period o1l four weeks from today, let no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned garnishee notice. (
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed oll There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. B. REKHA RANI //// REGISTRAR To, OFFICER '
The Assistant Commissioner oJ Cenkal Tax, Khammam GST Division. H. No. 15-13-154, Stapathi Vijaya Raghavi f"l."r., "irnk Colony, Khammam, ^ Khammam Dlskict, Telang ana _SO7OO2. 2. The Additional Director. . directorate General of GST tntelligence, Hyderabad Zonar Unit, H No. 1_11_222t4, L;;; opp-;DFc E;;k, il;ffi;; Hyderabad, Telangana _ 500016. ' --"- -t't'' '
w{ffilr
The Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax, lt/edchal Commissionerate, 11-4-64gtB, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyderabad, Telangana -500004. 4. The superintendent of central Tax, Kothagudem CGST Range, euarter No. B-3, (Type-ll) NMDC Staff Quarters, Paloncha Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, Telangana - 507154. 5. The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -110001. 6. The Branch Manager, state Bank of lndia, HACA Bhavan, saifabad, opp. Assembly, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500004. IFSC Code. SB1N007315. 7. One CC to SRl. G NARENDRA CHETTY Advocate [OPUC]
One CC to SRl. DOMINIC FERNANDES (senior standing counsel for CBIC) IoPUCI 9. one cc to sRl. N. BHUJANGA RAo, DY. soltclroR GENERAL oF tNDtA loPUcI 10.Two CD Copies ?II BM BS N/ t \
\. HIGH COURT DATED: 1110612026 ORDER WP.No.1215 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I! 0 2 JlJr 2026 t IA s E t-\ t fr. o() '5Sr )qi * D I 70 U vb
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.