T. Madhavi Devi, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kaligotla Srikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Pravalika Goud, learned counsel representing Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, for respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

2. In the present writ petition, the garnishee notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”), dated 06.05.2026, is only under challenge wherein the petitioner’s banker – Bank of Baroda, Tarnaka, has been asked to maintain lien on the petitioner’s account towards recovery of tax of Rs.31,01,906/-. This recovery proceedings are based upon the order-in-original dated 30.12.2022 for the period March, 2020 to December, 2020 as affirmed in the order-in-appeal dated 30.12.2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 10% of the tax dues have been deposited as a pre-deposit for filing the appeal (Annexure P.1). However, respondent No.4 – Assistant Commissioner, has still issued notice under Section 79(1)(c) of the Act in Form GST DRC-13 on the petitioner’s banker – Bank of Baroda, Tarnaka. Therefore, the petitioner has sought to assail the impugned garnishee notice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to approach the learned Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as, “the Appellate Tribunal”), but it has not started functioning.

5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs appearing for respondents Nos.2 to 4, however, has drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 24.09.2025 issued by the Appellate Tribunal. It is submitted that the period for filing appeals against the orders of the appellate or revisional authorities issued on or after 01.03.2023 but on or before 31.01.2024 is between the period commencing on 01.12.2025 and ending on 31.12.2025 or any date succeeding such date being not later than 30.06.2026. It is submitted that the learned Appellate Tribunal commenced entertaining filing of appeals. Therefore, the petitioner should approach the learned Appellate Tribunal with the statutory pre-deposit. If the petitioner has meanwhile made the pre-deposit as per Annexure P.1, it should approach respondent No.4 for stay of the recovery proceedings in Form GST DRC-13.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances noted above, since the petitioner is inclined to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act before the learned Appellate Tribunal against the order-in-appeal and claims to have made the pre-deposit also, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach respondent No.1 for stay of the impugned recovery proceedings. The petitioner may approach the learned Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal within the window period prescribed under the order dated 24.09.2025 against the impugned order-in-appeal. Needless to say, if the petitioner is able to satisfy respondent No.4 that the statutory pre- deposit has been made for preferring the appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal, respondent No.4 shall take a decision on the stay of the recovery proceedings within a period of two weeks thereafter.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.