TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Search and seizure valid where authorities had information about purchases from non-existent supplier under Section 67(1)(a) CGST Act</h1> <h3>Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan polymers Versus Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.</h3> Santosh Kumar Gupta Prop. Mahan polymers Versus Union of India Through Secretary & Ors. - 2024 (82) G. S. T. L. 39 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Legality of the search conducted under Section 67 of the CGST Act.2. Whether the petitioner was coerced into depositing Rs. 10,00,000.3. Entitlement to a refund of the deposited amount.4. Supply of FORM GST INS-01 and other documents.Summary:Issue 1: Legality of the SearchThe petitioner challenged the search conducted on 12.11.2022 under Section 67 of the CGST Act on two grounds: the authorization was issued mechanically without 'reasons to believe' as required under Section 67(1)(a), and the search was illegal due to prior similar proceedings by the Delhi Goods & Services Tax Authorities, invoking Section 6(2)(b) of the CGST Act. The court referred to the interpretation of 'reasons to believe' from *Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer* and concluded that the information about the petitioner's transactions with non-existent suppliers provided a rational basis for the belief that the petitioner wrongfully availed ITC. Hence, the search was not illegal or vitiated.Issue 2: Coercion into Depositing Rs. 10,00,000The petitioner claimed he was coerced into depositing Rs. 10,00,000 during the search. The court noted that the deposit was made in FORM GST DRC-03 from the laptop carried by the visiting team and the petitioner claimed coercion immediately by a letter dated 14.11.2022. The court found this issue covered by previous decisions in *Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer* and *Lovelesh Singhal v. Commissioner, Delhi Goods & Service Tax*. Hence, the court directed the respondents to refund the amount.Issue 3: Entitlement to RefundThe court directed the respondents to refund the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 deposited by the petitioner, clarifying that this order would not preclude the respondents from taking necessary steps to protect the interest of the Revenue, including actions under Section 83 of the CGST Act or Rule 86(A) of the CGST Rules if conditions are satisfied.Issue 4: Supply of DocumentsThe petitioner's request for a copy of FORM GST INS-01, Panchnama, and recorded statement was deemed unnecessary as the respondents affirmed that no statement was recorded and no goods or documents were seized under Section 67(2) of the CGST Act.Conclusion:The petition was disposed of with directions to refund the deposited amount, while allowing the respondents to take further steps to protect revenue interests if necessary.
TaxTMI 