HC Refuses Interim Relief Against GST Recovery Due to Delay

Case Details: Best Agrolife Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra [2026] 185 taxmann.com 598 (Bombay)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Anil L. Pansare & Nivedita P. Mehta, JJ.
• Prakash Shah, Sr. Adv., Mohit Rawal & A.N. Agrawal, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• S.S. Hulke, AGP for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged recovery notices issued to banks, arising from proceedings initiated for alleged short payment of tax. The petitioner had earlier been issued a notice directing payment within seven days and cautioning initiation of recovery. In response, the petitioner submitted communications and portal data, contending that credit notes had been issued and reported, the outward tax of the relevant period had been adjusted and discharged, buyers’ input tax credit (ITC) had been reduced, and portal reports reflected a negative liability, thereby negating any short payment. It was further submitted that despite such representations, the authorities proceeded to issue recovery notices to banks under Section 79. It sought an interim relief. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the petitioner had been put to notice under Rule 142 of the CGST and Maharashtra GST Rules, followed by communications and responses, and therefore was required to approach the Court promptly for relief. The Court observed that recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST and Maharashtra GST Act had already been initiated and the petitioner sought interim restraint. The Court noted that unjustified delay defeats the urgency required for grant of interim protection against coercive recovery measures under Section 79. Accordingly, the Court held that the prayer for interim relief was liable to be rejected, and the writ petition against recovery was dismissed.