The Orissa High Court has directed the tax authorities to consider a taxpayer’s request to withdraw a GST recovery notice after he filed a second appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal with the required pre-deposit.
The bench of Justice Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi and Justice Murahari Sri Raman restrained further recovery until the authorities decide his applications.
The dispute concerned a Form GST DRC-13 notice issued on June 5, 2026, by the Joint Commissioner, CT & GST Circle, Kendrapara.
The petitioner/assessee challenged the June 5 order before the High Court. His counsel submitted that he had filed a second appeal under Section 112 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, before the GST Appellate Tribunal on June 28, 2026. According to the submission, he also deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount as the mandatory pre-deposit, and the appeal remains pending.
The taxpayer argued that the Joint Commissioner lacked the authority to issue the DRC-13 garnishee order under Section 79 of the OGST Act. He further contended that continuing recovery despite the Tribunal appeal and pre-deposit violated Section 112(9).
The taxpayer contended that he had approached the authorities to withdraw the DRC-13 notice, enclosing the Tribunal filing acknowledgement and pre-deposit challan with a letter dated September 1, 2026. The grievance, counsel said, had yet to be considered.
The High Court noted a significant point in the sequence of events: the recovery notice was issued on June 5, before the second appeal was filed on June 28. It therefore permitted Das to approach the authority concerned with an application invoking Section 112(9).
If he files that application, the authority must consider it under Section 112(9), together with the application seeking withdrawal of the DRC-13 recovery proceedings that the order records as having been filed on August 17, 2026. The Court directed the authority to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 15 days of September 23, 2026.
“Till disposal of the said applications, there shall not be any recovery proceeding against the Petitioner,” the Bench directed.
The Court disposed of the writ petition without deciding whether the Joint Commissioner was competent to issue DRC-13 or whether the notice must ultimately be withdrawn. Those issues remain for consideration by the authority under the Court’s directions.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
