Case Details: V.V.S. Enterprises vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2026) 42 Centax 230 (A.P.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- R Raghunandan Rao & T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ.
- Shri R. Siva Sai Swarup, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a registered dealer, filed a writ petition challenging the recovery notice issued by the department to the petitioner’s bank under section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act and the Andhra Pradesh GST Act for recovery of outstanding tax dues. The petitioner contended that no adjudication proceedings under section 73 or section 74 of the CGST Act had been initiated before issuance of the impugned notice. The petitioner further contended that the proper officer had not obtained authorisation from the competent authority before initiating recovery proceedings under section 79 of the CGST Act. The record, however, showed that an assessment order had already been passed against the petitioner and that the said order had attained finality. The matter was placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that section 79 of the CGST Act does not prescribe any requirement for obtaining prior authorisation from a competent authority before issuance of a recovery notice. It was observed that once the assessment order attained finality, the department was legally entitled to initiate recovery proceedings to realise outstanding tax dues. Therefore, the issuance of notice to the bank under section 79(1) (c) for recovery of tax dues did not suffer from any illegality. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
-
- Galaxy International v. Union of India — (2025) 32 Centax 212 (Bom.) — Referred [Para 7]
- RAMMS India (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes — (2026) 38 Centax 233 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 7]
- S.J.R. Prime Corporation (P.) Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Taxes — (2026) 38 Centax 337 (Kar.) — Referred [Para 7]





