Voluntary search deposit not tax under Article 265; refund with interest ordered despite pending Section 74(1) CGST

HC held that the amount of Rs. 83,89,196/- deposited by the petitioner during a search was a voluntary deposit and did not constitute tax collection under Article 265 of the Constitution. As the revenue failed to establish any statutory authority for obtaining this amount, its retention was held to be without authority of law and violative of Article 300A. Pending or proposed proceedings under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act did not justify withholding the sum. The petition was allowed, and respondents were directed to refund Rs. 83,89,196/- to the petitioner with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, within 30 days of receipt of the certified order.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an amount voluntarily deposited by a taxpayer during a search, in the absence of any statutory authority or subsequent adjudication/demand, can be retained by revenue or must be refunded.

2. Whether initiation (or non-initiation) of proceedings under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act affects the entitlement to immediate reinstatement/refund of an amount deposited during search.

3. Whether an amount collected/retained by revenue without authority of law amounts to "tax" collected under Article 265 or constitutes deprivation of property without authority under Article 300A.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Lawfulness of retention of amounts deposited during search

Legal framework: Searches under the CGST / IGST scheme (panchnama/recording under Section 70 CGST Act) permit seizure/recording of documents and property; tax collection, assessment and demand are governed by statutory provisions including those prescribing when and how recovery may be made. Section 74(1) CGST Act provides for initiation of certain proceedings leading to penalties/demands.

Precedent treatment: The Court followed prior High Court decisions that addressed similar facts-decisions holding that amounts deposited voluntarily during search, without statutory authority or subsequent adjudication, cannot be treated as valid tax collection. Reliance was placed on earlier High Court rulings which in turn relied on decisions from other High Courts on the distinction between voluntary deposits during search and tax validly collected under law.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that retention of deposited funds by revenue requires statutory authority. In the absence of material demonstrating that the deposited sum was taken pursuant to any lawful power to collect tax (or that valid proceedings were initiated to convert the deposit into a lawful attachment/demand), the act of retaining the amount constitutes collection without authority. The Court treated a voluntary deposit taken during search as not having the attributes of a tax collected under law when unaccompanied by subsequent statutory proceedings.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where revenue retains a sum deposited during search without showing statutory authority or initiating appropriate proceedings (e.g., under Section 74(1) or by raising demand/penalty), the deposit must be refunded. The Court's reliance on prior High Court decisions is applied as binding reasoning in the facts of the case. Remarks on searches and recording under Section 70 are explanatory/obiter to the extent they do not form the basis for retention.

Conclusion: The Court directed refund of the deposited amount since revenue failed to demonstrate any lawful basis for its retention.

Issue 2 - Effect of non-initiation of Section 74(1) proceedings on refund entitlement

Legal framework: Section 74(1) CGST Act governs initiation of proceedings in certain cases for imposition of penalty/demand; statutory process is the vehicle by which provisional measures may be validated or made final.

Precedent treatment: The Court adhered to jurisprudence holding that unless revenue initiates proper proceedings and records statutory basis for recovery/deduction, mere custody of sums obtained during search does not convert them into taxes legitimately collected.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that at the time of adjudication no proceedings under Section 74(1) had been initiated nor had any fresh demand or penalty been raised. Because no statutory proceedings were in train to justify retention, the deposited amount could not be lawfully withheld. The absence of subsequent action by revenue underscores the lack of legal authority for retention.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - absence of initiation of specified statutory proceedings (here Section 74(1)) or any adjudicatory step validating the deposit negates revenue's entitlement to retain the amount; refund is mandated. Observations on revenue's intention to issue notice were treated as factual background and not a substitute for lawful authority.

Conclusion: Non-initiation of Section 74(1) proceedings (or any statutory adjudication converting the deposit into a lawful recovery) compels refund of the deposited sum with interest.

Issue 3 - Whether retention of deposited amount implicates Article 265 / Article 300A rights

Legal framework: Article 265 requires tax collection to be by authority of law; Article 300A protects against deprivation of property save by authority of law. The GST scheme prescribes the manner and authority for tax assessment, collection and recovery.

Precedent treatment: The Court followed prior decisions which held that amounts collected without authority do not qualify as "tax" under Article 265 and that retention of such amounts amounts to deprivation of property in violation of Article 300A unless sanctioned by law.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court concluded that an amount taken without statutory authority (i.e., without a valid demand/notice or other legislative/administrative basis) cannot be characterized as tax collection under Article 265 and results in an unlawful deprivation under Article 300A. Therefore, such amounts must be reinstated/refunded unless and until valid legal process is invoked.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - retention of funds by revenue without statutory authority constitutes collection without authority (Article 265) and unlawful deprivation (Article 300A), giving rise to an entitlement to refund. Ancillary observations about the character of voluntary deposits during searches are explanatory.

Conclusion: Constitutional protections preclude retention of amounts deposited during search absent lawful authority; refund is warranted.

Relief, interest and consequential directions

Interpretation and reasoning: Applying the foregoing principles and following the cited High Court authorities, the Court ordered refund of the deposited amount. The Court imposed interest at a specified rate (6%) from the date of filing of the petition until payment, and directed refund within a defined period after receipt of certified copy of the order.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where retention is held unlawful, refund with interest is appropriate relief; procedural modalities (time for refund, rate of interest) are consequential directions warranted by equitable and legal principles.

Conclusion: Refund of the deposited amount with interest ordered within a fixed time; pending applications disposed of.

---