Recovery actions must adhere to mandatory procedures, ensuring due process and proper notice to the party liable, not conflated with unrelated entities.

ORDER :

S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

“A. Issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) in the nature of Certiorari to set aside and quash the Impugned Form GST DRC – 13 dated 14.10.2025 bearing No.T.No.DCCT/ADT 3.1/ /2025-26 issued by the Respondent No.1 for the F.Y. 2022-23 (Annexure-A);

B. Issue order(s), direction(s), writ(s) in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondents to lift the attachment and refund the said amount illegally recovered of the amount of Rs.24,73,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs Seventy-Three Thousand only) as reflected in Annexure-A1 along with applicable interest forthwith; and

C. Pass any such other orders and directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner-Company was incorporated on 12.10.1994. Subsequently, one more private limited company in the name and style M/s. Xylem Resource Management Private Limited Company (XRMPL) was incorporated on 28.09.2007. It is an undisputed fact and matter of record that Gautam Chowdhury, one of the Directors of the petitioner-Company also happens to be one of the Directors of XRMPL.

4. On 01.08.2023, respondent No.1 issued a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the KGST Act to the aforesaid Company, XRMPL, which culminated in the adjudication order dated 29.11.2023 confirming payment made against XRMPL in pursuance of the order dated 29.11.2023. In pursuance of the said order, the respondents did not take any steps to recover the amount from the aforesaid XRMPL, but instead the respondents issued the impugned notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 14.10.2025 and recovered a sum of Rs.24,73,000/- from Canara Bank, in which the petitioner maintains its account. It is the grievance of the petitioner that merely because Gautam Chowdhury happens to be the Director in both the petitioner- Company and XRMPL and the petitioner-Company, not being the garnishee in the aforesaid XRMPL nor the petitioner-Company being liable to pay any amount to the aforesaid XRMPL, which suffered the aforesaid adjudication order, it is impermissible in law for respondent No.1 to proceed and recover the amount from the petitioner-Company in pursuance of the impugned notice, which deserves to be quashed.

5. It is also submitted that in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of SJR Prime Corporation Private Limited Vs. The Superintendent of Central Tax and another – W.P.No.35114/2024 dated 09.04.2025, which is followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Galaxy International Vs. Union of India and others –W.P.No.11399/2024 dated 24.06.2025, the petitioner would appear before respondent No.1 on 05.01.2026 and the claim of the petitioner for refund of the amount recovered may be considered by respondent No.1, who may be directed to pass appropriate orders, within a stipulated timeframe.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 jointly submit that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. A perusal of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the material on record will indicate that undisputedly the show- cause notice dated 01.08.2023 was issued not to the petitioner- Company, but to the aforesaid XRMPL, which is an independent, juristic and legal entity, against whom adjudication order dated 29.11.20223 was passed by the respondents. It follows therefrom that the petitioner, which is