Statutory recovery provisions do not authorize the attachment of a director’s personal bank account to discharge the tax liabilities of a company, as garnishee powers are legally confined to the assets of the specific assessee entity.

COMMON ORDER :

C. SARAVANAN, J.

By this common order, both these writ petitions are being disposed of, as they are connected and arise out of the same facts and circumstances.

2. In W.P.No.8366 of 2025, the petitioner challenged the impugned Recovery Notice dated 30.10.2024 issued by the 1^st respondent, wherein an amount was sought to be recovered pursuant to the Order-in-Original No.1/2020 dated 28.02.2020.

3. In W.P.No.6874 of 2026, the petitioner sought to lift the lien of Rs.64,52,000/- marked against the petitioner’s bank account bearing Account No.922010024838131 maintained with the 2^nd Respondent Bank and further sought a direction to the 1^st Respondent to refrain from recovering the dues payable by M/s. RU Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. under Order-in-Original No. 1/2020 dated 28.02.2020 from the petitioner.

4. The Order-in-Original No.1/2020 dated 28.02.2020 was passed against the Company M/s. RU Information Technologies Private Limited, following Show Cause Notice (SCN) No.01/2019(ST) dated 16.04.2019, in which the petitioner herein was a Director.

5. By the said Order-in-Original, the following demands were confirmed against M/s. RU Information Technologies Private Limited, including a penalty of Rs.1 Lakh imposed on the petitioner.

“8(i) I confirm the demand of Rs.31,01,304 /- (Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred and four only) being the Service Tax (including Cesses), payable on the value of Information Technology Service provided by M/s. Ru Information Technologies Private Limited during the period from Oct. 2013 to Mar. 2017 under the provisions of Section 73(2) of FA, 1994 and direct them to pay the same forthwith;

8(ii) 1 confirm the demand of interest at appropriate rate on delayed payment of service tax determined to be payable at para. No. 8(i) above from M/s. Ru Information Technologies Private Limited under the provisions of Section 75 of the FA, 1994;

8(iii) I impose a penalty of Rs.31,01,304/-(Rupees Thirty-One Lakhs One Thousand Three Hundred and four only) on M/s. Ru Information Technologies Private Limited under the provisions of Section 78 of FA, 1994. As per the proviso to Sec. 78 of FA, 1994, if service tax and interest determined to be payable is paid within a period of thirty days of the date of receipt of this order the penalty payable shall be twenty-five percent of the service tax determined to be payable at above. The benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only if the amount of such reduced penalty is also paid within Thirty days;

8(iv) Since, penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of FA, 1994 has been imposed, I do not impose any penalty under the provisions of Section 76 of the FA, 1994;

The benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only if the amount of such reduced penalty is also paid within Thirty days;

8(iv) Since, penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of FA, 1994 has been imposed, I do not impose any penalty under the provisions of Section 76 of the FA, 1994;

8(v) M/s. Ru Information Technologies Private Limited are also liable for payment of late fee of Rs.1,40,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Forty thousand only) for non-filing of ST-3 returns for the period 2013-14 to 2016-17 under the provisions of Section 70 of FA, 1994 read with Rule 7C of STR, 1994.

8(vi) 1 impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees. Ten thousand only) under Section 77 of the FA, 1994 on M/s. Ru Information Technologies Private Limited for the reasons mentioned in para. 6.6 above;

8(vii) 1 impose a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees. One Lakh onl