M/S D M Builders vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court noted the submission by the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 4. The submission stated that the respondents had passed an order of assessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and issued a garnishee notice against the petitioner as a defaulter. It was clarified that the accounts of another partnership firm were not attached. In view of this submission, the Court found that nothing survived for adjudication in the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was disposed of. The Court did not explicitly rule on the arbitrariness of the notice or the merits of the appeal or representation, as the petition was dismissed based on the respondent's submission.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s D M Builders, filed a writ petition seeking to quash a recovery notice dated December 19, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.10 (respondent No. 1) to the Branch Manager of Canara Bank (respondent No. 2) under Section 45. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent No. 1 to withdraw recovery proceedings pending disposal of an appeal before the first appellate authority and to adjudicate a representation dated January 6, 2020. The respondent No. 1 and 4's counsel submitted that the respondents had passed an order of assessment under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and issued a garnishee notice against the petitioner as a defaulter, clarifying that the accounts of another partnership firm were not attached.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery notice dated December 19, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Audit)-5.10 to the Branch Manager of Canara Bank under Section 45 of the CGST Act is arbitrary and liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that the notice was arbitrary. The revenue contended that it was a valid recovery notice issued against a defaulter. 2. Whether the first respondent should be directed to withdraw recovery proceedings until the disposal of the appeal filed before the first appellate authority? The petitioner sought this direction to stay recovery pending appeal. The revenue did not explicitly argue against this point, but their submission implied that recovery was justified. 3. Whether the first respondent should be directed to adjudicate the representation dated January 6, 2020, filed by the petitioner? The petitioner sought adjudication of their representation. The revenue's response did not specifically address this point.