Key Points: - The petitioner challenges an impugned notice under Section 79(1)(c) of APGST Act, 2017 directing a bank to pay tax dues on behalf of a defaulting dealer. (!) - The Court held that no authorization from a competent authority is required for issuing notices under Section 79, and the notice was issued by the proper officer as per Gazette notification. (!) (!) - The Court noted that Section 79 allows recovery from third parties from whom money is due or may become due to the defaulting dealer, and there is no bar to such recovery without prior notice to the dealer in certain circumstances. (!) (!) (!) - The case distinguished earlier judgments relied upon by the petitioner, stating those did not apply since there was no dispute about the tax liability (the assessment was final and unchallenged). (!) (!) - The Assessment Order dated 17.01.2025 against the petitioner had attained finality and the impugned notice was issued after tax dues remained unpaid for over a year. (!) - The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding no illegality in issuing the impugned notice under Section 79 and declining relief. (!) - The Gazette notification dated 14.12.2022 identifies the appropriate proper officer (Deputy Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Airport Circle) for exercising powers under Section 79. (!) (!) - The Court emphasized that the Section 79 recovery mechanism is to recover tax arrears from third parties and to credit the amount to the Government accounts. (!) (!) - The petitioner’s request for stay of the impugned notice was rejected as part of the main petition dismissal. (!) - The order closes pending applications; no costs awarded. (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?