Samrat Marble Granite And Tiles. Vs Union of India & Ors. (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
The Himachal Pradesh High Court addressed a writ petition challenging a GST recovery action initiated despite the filing of statutory appeals. The petitioner had suffered adverse orders dated 13.10.2022 and 14.10.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, and thereafter preferred appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107(6) was also made before the Appellate Authority. Despite this, the department issued a recovery notice in Form DRC-13 dated 23.07.2025 under Rule 145(1) of the CGST Rules read with Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, directing the petitioner’s bank to remit the disputed amount, resulting in freezing of the petitioner’s bank account.
On instructions placed before the Court, the State clarified that the impugned recovery notice was issued a day prior to the filing of the appeals and deposit of the pre-deposit. It was further stated that the demand draft prepared pursuant to the recovery notice had not been encashed and that no coercive action was warranted once the appeals and pre-deposit were on record, subject to the outcome of the appeals.
In view of these submissions, the Court held that the recovery notice had lost its efficacy and relevancy. The DRC-13 notice was quashed, directions were issued for return of the demand draft, and the petitioner’s bank account was ordered to be de-freezed. The Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the tax demand, which would be decided by the competent authority under the CGST Act.
