Monika Malhotra vs. State Of Punjab And Others

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition. The Court accepted the concession made by the learned State counsel that the impugned recovery notices dated 14.02.2022 at Annexures P-3 to P-5 were issued without complying with the procedure envisaged under Section 79(1)(c)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically by not serving any notice on the petitioner prior to their issuance. Consequently, the Court found that the recovery notices could not sustain. The Court set aside the impugned recovery notices. However, liberty was granted to the respondents to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law, implying they could re-issue notices after complying with the due procedure.

Facts

The petitioner, Monika Malhotra, filed a writ petition challenging recovery notices dated 14.02.2022 (Annexures P-3 to P-5) issued to her bank. These notices were issued by the respondents, the State of Punjab and others, to recover dues from the petitioner's husband, who was the assessee/defaulter. The petitioner contended that the recovery notices were issued without prior notice to her, despite the funds in the bank account being in her capacity as the wife of the assessee. The State counsel conceded that the recovery notices were issued without complying with the procedure under Section 79(1)(c)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically by not serving notice on the petitioner prior to their issuance.

Key Issues

1. Whether the recovery notices dated 14.02.2022 issued to the petitioner's bank, attaching funds held by her, are sustainable in law, considering the alleged non-compliance with the procedure under Section 79(1)(c)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the recovery notices were issued without serving prior notice on her, which is a mandatory procedural requirement under Section 79(1)(c)(i) of the GST Act, 2017, before attaching the bank account. Revenue's Argument: The State counsel conceded that the recovery notices were issued without complying with the procedure envisaged under Section 79(1)(c)(i) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as no notice was served on the petitioner prior to their issuance. The State counsel further stated that the recovery notices could not sustain.