High Court of Madras
CBIGS Apparels and Jewels v. Joint Commissioner
W.P. NOS. 3204 AND 16529 OF 2024 & 6074 OF 2026
The ruling in brief
Where company failed to pay self-assessed liability reported in GSTR-1 and went into liquidation, and recovery from company was not possible, joint and several liability was fastened on directors during default unless they proved absence of negligence; so attachment of director’s bank account by garnishee process for recovery of company dues was justified and did not warrant interference at this stage.
Where partnership firm’s bank accounts were attached to recover arrears of a company under director liability because a partner was also director of defaulting company at relevant period, subsequent changes in partnership were irrelevant and close family ties among promoters and partners justified action, so firm’s challenge to garnishee communications was not sustainable and writ was dismissed
Where one company's bank account was attached for recovery of another company's arrears, given common promoters and directorship swaps among family members across entities and evidence suggesting incorporation of petitioner aimed at evasion, lifting of corporate veil was warranted and interference with garnishee attachment was unwarranted, leading to dismissal of writ petitions
Provisions considered
Section 79, read with Sections 75 and 88 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 145 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 79, read with Section 88 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 145 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 79 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 145 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.