Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Deposit taken during search held unlawfully collectible under Article 265 and Article 300A; Rs.1,99,90,000 to be refunded with 6% interest</h1> <h3>Diwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of CGST and anr.</h3> HC held the amount deposited during search proceedings was not lawfully collectible under Article 265 and 300A, and no proper receipt was issued; the ... Refund alongwith Interest - amount deposited during search proceedings - blocking of Input Tax Credit - whether the amount deposited on behalf of the petitioner-concern, during search proceedings carried out, was a voluntary act or not? - HELD THAT:- Reference at this stage can further be made to judgment of Karanataka High Court in a case of THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE NEW DELHI, SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE HYDERABAD ZONAL UNIT, DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE HYDERABAD, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE HYDERABAD PRINCIPAL ADDITIONAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF GOODS AND SERVICES TAX INTELLIGENCE HYDERABAD VERSUS M/S. BUNDL TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX GOODS AND SERVICE TAX BENGALURU [2022 (3) TMI 625 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT], wherein the question was that whether the amount was voluntarily paid during investigation by a company under Section 74 (5) of Act. The appeal was dismissed and it was held that Article 264 of the Constitution of India mandates that collection of tax has to be by authority of law. If tax is collection without any authority of law, the same would amount to depriving person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe his right under Article 300A of Constitution. The only provision which permits deposit of amount during pendency of investigation is Section 74 (5) of Act, which is not attracted. The amount collected from company is in violation of Article 265 and 300A of Constitution. The contention of the department that amount under deposit be made subject to outcome of pending investigation, cannot be accepted. In the present case, as per the department, the petitioner has deposited the impugned amount voluntarily and the proper procedure has been followed. But Article 265 of the Constitution of India lays down that collection of tax has to be by the authority of law. If tax is collected without any authority of law, the same would amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe his right under Article 300 A of the Constitution of India as well. In the present case, no receipt was given by the Proper Officer after accepting the impugned amount - Thus, the amount deposited by the petitioner under protest were liable to be refunded, as the petitioner has been deprived of his right. The writ petition is partly allowed and respondent No. 1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,99,90,000/- along with 6 % interest. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the refund of a sum of Rs. 1,99,90,000/- along with interest and the unblocking of input tax credit amounting to Rs. 24,18,516/-.Refund of Rs. 1,99,90,000/-:The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing lead products, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 1,99,90,000/- along with interest, which was forcibly deposited by respondent No. 1 after a search conducted on the petitioner's premises. Respondent No. 1 contended that the amount was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner, as indicated in the FORM GST DRC-03. The investigation revealed illegal availment of input tax credit and discrepancies in invoices. The department issued a show cause notice raising a demand, which was confirmed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner sought a refund based on precedents emphasizing that tax collection must be by the authority of law to avoid infringing on the right to property.Unblocking of Input Tax Credit:Respondent No. 2 had initially blocked input tax credit amounting to Rs. 24,18,516/- in the petitioner's electronic ledger, leading to objections from the petitioner. However, the court noted that the matter involving respondent No. 2 had become infructuous as the account was unblocked after a year, and steps were taken against the demand raised. The focus shifted to respondent No. 1, with the court adjourning the matter to allow further steps to be determined. The petitioner's claim for the unblocking of input tax credit was intertwined with the overall dispute and subsequent legal proceedings.Judicial Precedents and Legal Provisions:The judgment referenced various legal provisions, including Section 74(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, and Section 142(2) of the CGST Rules, 2017, to emphasize the importance of tax collection being in accordance with the law. Precedents from different High Courts were cited to support the petitioner's claim for a refund, highlighting the constitutional mandate that tax collection must be authorized by law to avoid violating property rights. The court's decision to partially allow the writ petition and direct respondent No. 1 to refund the disputed amount, along with interest, was based on these legal principles and precedents.Conclusion:The judgment addressed the issues of refunding a significant sum and unblocking input tax credit, emphasizing the legal requirement for tax collection to be authorized by law. The court's decision to partially allow the petition and order the refund, along with interest, was influenced by legal precedents and constitutional provisions safeguarding property rights in tax matters. The detailed analysis of the facts, legal provisions, and precedents formed the basis for the court's decision in this complex tax dispute.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found