The Bombay High Court has directed that no coercive action be taken against the assessee and another petitioner on the basis of a recovery notice until the next hearing, after their counsel contended that recovery proceedings had been initiated without serving the underlying order.
A Division Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil passed the interim direction and granted the respondents time to file their reply and listed the petition for further hearing on December 15, 2026.
Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate Makarand Joshi, assisted by advocate Gargi P. Tendulkar, submitted that recovery proceedings had been initiated against them even though the impugned order had not been served.
The contention placed the alleged non-service of the underlying order at the centre of the petitioners’ request for protection against recovery.
The brief order records this as the petitioners’ submission. It does not make a final finding on whether the order was served or decide the legality of the recovery proceedings.
Advocate Ruju Thakker, appearing with advocate Abhishek R. Mishra for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, sought time to file an affidavit in reply.
Allowing the request, the Bench directed that the reply be filed within three weeks from the date of the order. The petitioners were permitted to file a rejoinder, if any, within one week thereafter.
These directions allow the respondents to place their position before the Court before the petition is considered further.
Pending the next hearing, the Bench directed:
“Till the next date, no coercive action be taken on the basis of the recovery notice.”
The direction provides temporary protection against coercive action under the recovery notice while the proceedings remain pending.
The Court has not quashed either the recovery notice or the impugned order. Its direction is interim and operates until the next date of hearing.
The present petition was directed to be listed on the same date.
The order does not set out the underlying demand, the amount sought to be recovered, the statutory provisions involved, or the detailed facts of the connected proceedings. The substantive dispute therefore remains open for consideration after the parties complete their pleadings.
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.
Read More: CBIC Clarifies Rupee Receipts, Set-Offs; Bars Refund Recovery Where AD Bank Writes Off Realisation
