https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439171 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. en-us Thu, 04 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 15 Dec 2025 14:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439171 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. Case-Laws GST Thu, 04 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439171