GST: Supreme Court stays Coercive Recovery till Multiple SCNs settled:

Judicial discretion upheld; protection granted till pending disputes are resolved
SC: Overlapping show cause notices justify interim stay

GST: Supreme Court stays Coercive Recovery till Multiple SCNs settled
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the HC's stay order. The case involved multiple show cause notices (SCNs) that covered overlapping tax periods. While the said notices were under challenge before the courts, the tax department proceeded to issue assessment orders and initiated recovery proceedings against the assessee. Aggrieved by orders, the assessee approached the High Court, which granted interim relief by staying any coercive recovery action until the disputes were finally decided by the competent court. Revenue filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the interim stay.
Issue Raised: Whether the interim stay order passed by the High Court, restraining the tax authorities/revenue from taking coercive recovery steps against the assessee, was justified during the pendency of overlapping adjudication proceedings as being unjust and premature.
Supreme Court's Decision: The Hon'ble SC upheld and confirmed the High Court’s order, finding no fault in its reasoning. The Apex Court noted that the HC had correctly exercised its discretion by granting a stay on the recovery proceedings, considering that various overlapping SCNs were still pending a decision. The court had observed that such stay orders ensure fairness and prevent undue hardship to a taxpayer during ongoing adjudication. It is pertinent to mention that the Court found no substantial question of law or jurisdictional error that warranted interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. It dismissed the SLPs and clarified that while coercive recovery steps are stayed, the department may still pursue recovery through other lawful means once proceedings are concluded.
The SC affirmed the High Court’s power to provide interim protection in tax matters where overlapping proceedings are in play.
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2158My Recent Articles
- ITAT Quashes Consequential Assessment After Section 263 Revision Order FailsPremium
- ITAT Restricts Addition to Commission on Accommodation Cash Deposit TransactionsPremium
- ITAT Grants Relief on BSNL VRS Compensation and Leave Encashment ExemptionPremium
- ITAT Restores Charitable Trust's 12AB Registration Application After CIT(E) Rejects It for Non-Filing of DocumentsPremium
- Bombay High Court Quashes Time-Barred Reassessment Notice for AY 2015-16Premium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…









