https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760191 The HC ruled that the Revenue's recovery of Rs. 2.50 crores from the petitioner during pendency of investigation was illegal. The court found that the payments made by petitioner did not constitute valid self-ascertainment under Section 74(5) of CGST Act as they lacked the essential element of voluntariness. The court noted that self-ascertainment requires voluntary determination by the assessee and must be completed before issuance of notice under Section 74(1). Since the notice was already issued and adjudication was pending, reverting to Section 74(5) stage was not permissible. The petition was allowed in part, with the court directing refund of the recovered amount within four weeks with applicable interest. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 May 2025 18:16:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760191 The HC ruled that the Revenue's recovery of Rs. 2.50 crores from the petitioner during pendency of investigation was illegal. The court found that the payments made by petitioner did not constitute valid self-ascertainment under Section 74(5) of CGST Act as they lacked the essential element of voluntariness. The court noted that self-ascertainment requires voluntary determination by the assessee and must be completed before issuance of notice under Section 74(1). Since the notice was already issued and adjudication was pending, reverting to Section 74(5) stage was not permissible. The petition was allowed in part, with the court directing refund of the recovered amount within four weeks with applicable interest. Case-Laws GST Thu, 26 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760191