JUDGMENT :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

1. Heard Ms N Hawelia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise Department for respondent No. 2.

2. None has appeared for respondent No. 1, State Bank of India.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of garnishee notices issued by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 and seeks a direction to respondent No. 2 to allow payment of service tax dues in installments.

4. As would be evident from the above, matter relates to payment of outstanding service tax dues by the petitioner.

4.1. Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Guwahati. For the period from April, 2013 to September, 2016, though petitioner had submitted its service tax returns, because of financial constraints, it could not pay the service tax collected. According to the petitioner, total liability for the said period stood at Rs. 6,27,45,124.00. For realization of dues, respondent No. 2 issued notice to respondent No. 1 on 14.02.2017 and on subsequent dates under Section 87 (b) of the Finance Act, 1994 calling upon respondent No. 1 to pay to the credit of the Central Government the money held by respondent No. 1 in the bank account of petitioner being Bank Account No. 34890601572.

5. Petitioner had represented before respondent No. 2 to withdraw the garnishee notices and to allow the petitioner to operate such bank account. Further prayer was made to allow the petitioner to pay outstanding dues in installments. Respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner on 11.04.2017 that the garnishee notices could not be withdrawn. Regarding payment of dues on installments, it was stated that the matter was under consideration of the Commissioner.

6. Petitioner has stated that despite financial difficulties it had made payment of Rs. 24,00,000.00 on 05.01.2019 towards meeting the liabilities and thereafter a further amount of Rs. 1 lac on 21.01.2019.

7. Notwithstanding the same, respondent No. 2 had instructed the clients of the petitioner not to make payments to the petitioner in view of issuance of garnishee notices.

8. Faced with such a situation, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

9. This Court vide order dated 20.2.2019 had directed Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to obtain instructions regarding prayer of the petitioner for payment of service tax dues in installments. In the meanwhile, an interim order was passed to the effect that no further coercive measures be taken against the petitioner.

10. Petitioner filed an interlocutory application being IA(Civil) No. 1064/2019 to quash subsequent notices issued pursuant to the garnishee notices. The subsequent notices were issued to different clients of the petitioner calling upon them to pay directly to the Central Government account as part amount covered by the garnishee notices.

11. This Court by order dated 08.04.2019 held that interim order passed on 20.02.2019 was holding the field. Therefore, the subsequent notices should not be acted upon until further order(s); besides clarifying that such notices would be subject to outcome of the writ petition. Relevant portion of the order dated 08.04.2019 is extracted hereunder:-

"By filing this Interlocutory Application, petitioner seeks stay of notices issued to various entities by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and GST Division-I, Guwahati under Section 87(b) of Chapter-IV of Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2)(e) of the Central Goods and Service Taxes Act, 2017.

Basic grievance of the petitioner is that the said notices have been issued without adjudicating the service tax liability of the petitioner and mechanical levy of interest Without adjudication, those notices could not have been issued. Levy of interest is not automatic. There is a wide range within which interest can be levied and this reflects exercise of discret