TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (11) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ninety Four Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Three Hundred Sixteen Only) deposited by it with the respondents has been erroneously recovered by the respondents from the petitioner without proper adjudication. The petitioner further prays for a direction to the respondent to determine the tax, interest or penalty due from the petitioner and appropriate the said amount of Rs. 94,65,316/- paid by the petitioner against the amount so found due. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that on 04.03.2021, the respondents carried out a search at the premises of the petitioner company located at D-5A/1, Ground Floor, Shiv Puri Extension, Chander Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi 110051. The respondents further carried out a search at the registered office premises of the petitioner company and sealed the said premises on the basis that the said address had not been disclosed in the Form GST REG-06. Stock lying in the said premises was also seized by the respondents. 3. The petitioner further claims that the respondent no.2 also carried out a search at the residential premises of the Director of the petitioner company situated at Jasola, New Delhi and during the search, seized an amount of Rs. 65 lakh in ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ame have not been provided to the petitioner. 10. She submits that as the deposit of tax was made under coercion, in absence of any proper adjudication and determination of tax liability against the petitioner, the same is liable to be refunded. She submits that instead of determining the tax liability, the respondents have issued the impugned letter dated 24.09.2021 claiming that the amount was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner under Section 74(5) of the CGST Act and the proceedings have been concluded against the petitioner. She reiterates that the amount had not been deposited voluntarily and in any case was without determination of tax and therefore, is liable to be refunded/adjusted. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent who appears on an advance notice, submits that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of concealment of facts. He submits that the Panchnama for affecting the seizure of Rs. 65 lakhs from the premises of the Director of the petitioner was duly served on the said Director and the receipt of the same has been acknowledged by the signing of the said Panchnama not only by the Director but also his wife. He has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... related to GST search dated 04.03.2021 and we do not want any Show Cause Notice in said matter issues." (Emphasis supplied) 14. The petitioner has also set up an apparently false case of the Panchnama not being provided to the petitioner. The copy of the Panchnama produced by the learned counsel for the respondents clearly bear the acknowledgment of receipt thereof by Mr. Budhiraja and his wife. We also find that the petitioner never raised a grievance in this regard till the letter dated 12.10.2021 from its counsel, where again it was not specifically raised in such terms. 15. The above concealment is, therefore, enough to deny any relief to the petitioner in exercise of the extra-ordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 16. Even otherwise, we find no merit in the present petition. Admittedly, the search at the residential premises of the Director of the petitioner company was carried out on 04.03.2021. The petitioner made no complaint to the respondents at the relevant time and till the letter dated 12.10.2021 of non-supply of Panchnama and other documents in respect of the search carried out at the premises. Clearly, this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 585,000 585,000 - - 87,750 87,750 1,345,500 4. ITC availed 294,225 294,225 121,199 121,199 44,134 44,134 919,116 5. Wrong ITC availed 1,582,889 1,582,889 1,212,719 1,212,719 237,433 237,433 6,066,082 Total 2,813,299 2,813,299 1,333,918 1,33,918 585,441 585,441 9,465,316 DRC-03 FILING We have paid the following taxes vide DRC-03, the information is as follows: 1. Vide Debit Entry No.DC0703210032129 dated March, 9, 2021 following tax was paid for FY 2020-21 (Annexure 1) : Type Tax Interest Penalty Total CGST 972,736 2,617 309,357 12,84,710 SGST 972,736 2,617 309,357 12,84,710 Total 25,69,420 2. Vide Debit Entry No.DC0703210032153 dated March, 9, 2021 following tax was paid for FY 2019-20 (Annexure 2): Type Tax Interest Penalty Total CGST 236,593 105,373 35,489 377,455 SGST 236,593 105,373 35,489 377,455 Total 7,54,910 3. Vide Debit Entry No.DC0703210032166 dated March, 9, 2021 following tax w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess taxes have inadvertently been paid by the assessee, which though cannot be levied as per well settled law. As your honour is aware that there cannot be "consent against the law" and always "law shall take its own course", therefore now the aforesaid company humbly prays and submits the following submissions before your honour, for kind consideration and better appreciation of facts, with a prayer to refund the excess taxes along with interest, in case it is found that excess taxes have inadvertently been paid or collected against the law or without authority of law not only in violation of GST Act but also against the Constitution of India." (Emphasis supplied) 20. In fact no plea of coercion was raised by the petitioner till the filing of the present petition. 21. Section 74 (5) of CGST Act states that a person chargeable with tax may, before service of notice under sub-section (1), pay the amount of tax along with interest payable under Section 50 of the CGST Act and a penalty equivalent to 15% of such tax on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax. The effect of such deposit is contained in Section 74(6) which states that the proper officer, on receipt of such info....