TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9,90,000/- along with interest. Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 to unblock input tax credit amounting to Rs.24,18,516/-. The facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of lead and lead related products. Respondent No. 2 blocked input tax credit amounting to Rs,.24,18,516/- lying in electronic ledger of the petitioner, to which he filed his objections. Respondent no. 1 searched premises of the petitioner on 14.01.2021 and Mr. Abhinav Sahaya, director was questioned throughout the search and thereafter, he was forcibly taken to their office where he was kept detained for two days. He was pressurized to deposit the amount and due to this, he deposited Rs.1,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petition, a by way of affidavit of Sophia Martin Joy, Commissioner, CGST, Faridabad was filed in this Court and in para No. 1, it has been stated that it is wrong to say that Rs.1,99,90,000/- were forcibly got deposited by respondent No. 1. The petitioner voluntarily deposited the impugned amount and the said fact is clear from the FORM GST DRC-03 (P-4) wherein against Sr. No. 3-Cause of payment, the petitioner has stated as 'Voluntary'. It is further denied that Mr. Sahaya, Director of the petitioner-company was forcibly taken to the office of respondent No. 1. The demand of GST of Rs.2,34,47,685/- was confirmed in the Assessment order passed by respondent No. 2. It has been further averred that there are sufficient prima facie evidences ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... filed on 04.02.2022 in this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has informed the Court that pursuant to summons dated 28.09.2021 (P-17), the department has issued letter again to the petitioner-Company on 02.01.2023 directing him to pay the amount along with interest and penalty by 11.01.2023. The summons were also issued to Rajiv Nandan Sahaya and Abhinav Sahaya under Section 70 of CGST Act 2017 but none has put in appearance. Now the question for consideration in the present writ petition would be that whether respondent No. 1 is liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,99,90,000/- along with interest. Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of Delhi High Court in a case of Vallabh Textiles vs. Senior Intelligence Officer an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing [a] complaint/grievance after the end of search proceedings should be made available to the assessee if the assessee was forced to make payment in any mode during the pendency of the search proceedings. (4) If complaint/grievance is filed by assessee and officer is found to have acted in defiance of the afore-stated directions, then strict disciplinary action should be initiated against the concerned officer." 78. It is important to note, that while in line with the directions contained in Bhumi Associate, the aforementioned Instruction i.e., Instruction No. 01/2022- 2023 dated 25.05.2022 inter alia, provides, as noticed above, that no recovery of tax should be made during search, inspection or Investigation unless it is volunt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that amount under deposit be made subject to outcome of pending investigation, cannot be accepted. The department was held liable to refund amount to Company. In para No. 30 and 31, it has been observed as under:- "30. In the backdrop of well settled legal principles and the statutory provision we may advert to the facts of case in hand. The Company deposited a sum of Rs.15 Crores at about 4.00 a.m. on 30.11.2019 and a sum of Rs.12,51,44,157/- on 27.12.2019. The company filed an application seeking refund on 29.09.2020. Thereafter the company filed an application seeking refund on 16.12.2020 on 16.12.2020 before jurisdictional GST authority. The Company requested the department to refund the amount. When the attempts of the company to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le 265 and 300-A of the Constitution. Therefore, the contention of the Department that amount under deposit be made subject to the outcome of the pending investigation can not be accepted. The Department, therefore, is liable to refund the amount to the Company. Now reference at this stage can be made to Section 74 (5) of CGST Act, 2017 which reads as under:- "74 (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) xxx xxx xxx (5) The 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 and a penalty equivalent to fifteen percent of such tax on the basis of his own ascertainment of such tax or the tax as ascertained by the proper o....