The court held that when a garnishee notice is challenged but the foundational Order-in-Original is not, the appropriate remedy is to prefer a statutory appeal against the original order, provided the appellate authority considers any delay in filing.

ORDER:

Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. M. Pranav, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. D. Raghavendra Rao, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3; and Ms. S. Swathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development Department, appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6.

2. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus:

a) declaring the proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in FORM GST DRC-13 vide F.No.IV/16/36/DRC-13/2021-22-PF-I (RFN: MA360726061197L) dated 07.07.2026 issued to the 4th Respondent- Bank under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST Act, 2017 demanding Rs.1,77,55,278/-, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and without authority of law, being far in excess of the demand adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.90/2025-26(GST)/BHD dated 22.12.2025 read with FORM GST DRC-07 dated 24.12.2025, and consequently set aside the same;

b) declaring the communication of the 2nd Respondent vide Letter F.No. IV/16/36/DRC-13/2021-22-PF-I dated 21.07.2026 addressed to the 4th Respondent-Bank directing identification and attachment/freezing of all bank accounts of partners of the Joint Venture and remittance of amounts lying therein, invoking Section 79(1)(c) read with Section 90 of the CGST Act, 2017 , as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, violative of the principles of natural justice and of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same;

c) consequently, directing Respondents 2 to 4 to forthwith lift/ withdraw any attachment, freeze, hold or debit-restriction placed on any bank account of the Petitioners pursuant to the impugned proceedings, and to re-credit/refund any amount remitted or appropriated thereunder;

d) direct the Respondents No.5 and 6 to forthwith release and pay to the Petitioner No.1 the differential GST component @ 6% on Tax Invoices Nos.KLIS/RAB/02 dated 28.09.2022 and KLIS/RAB/03 dated 19.10.2022, aggregating to Rs.96,50,036/-, together with any other tax component withheld from the Petitioner No.1’s bills

e) and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, including costs.”

3. The Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2025 has not been challenged. However, learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has taken an objection, as the foundational basis for issuance of the impugned garnishee notice dated 07.07.2026 has not been the subject matter of challenge in the instant Writ Petition.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount proposed to be attached under the impugned garnishee notice is far in excess of the demand raised in the Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2025 and Form GST DRC-07 dated 24.12.2025.

5. However, after some arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners seeks liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2025. He submits that some delay might have been occurred in preferring the appeal and therefore, the same may be directed to be considered sympathetically.

6. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioners were at liberty to prefer an appeal against the Order-in- Original dated 22.12.2025, taking all the grounds as are available to them in law and on facts.

7. However, upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, since the petitioners seek liberty to prefer an appeal, we do not wish to comment on the merits