TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1632
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....behalf of the Petitioner-M/s Goodluck Enterprises under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a refund of Rs. 75,00,000/- along with interest. The said amount had been deposited by the Petitioner vide DRC-03 dated 20th November, 2023, during the course of an investigation by the Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax Intelligence ('DGGI'). 4. A brief background of the present case is that the Petitioner is in the business of supplying electronic items. In 2017, the Petitioner registered under the GST Act and carried out its business operations. However, on 14th November, 2023 the Petitioner received a notice issued by the DGGI, Delhi (HQ), directing the Petitioner to appear before the said authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e refunded to the Petitioner. 7. Aggrieved by the non-refund of the amount, the Petitioner approached the Court vide W.P.(C) 14164/2024 titled 'M/s Goodluck Enterprises Vs. Union of India & Ors.'. Vide order dated 9th January, 2025 in the said matter, the negative blocking of the Input Tax Credit ('ITC') ledger of the Petitioner was quashed. 8. Insofar as the allegation of the Petitioner that Rs. 75,00,000/- were illegally recovered under coercion was concerned, the Court had given liberty on 9th January, 2025 in the following terms: "1. The order sheet would reflect that despite time having been granted on repeated occasions, the respondents have failed to file a reply on the instant writ petition. We thus find no justificat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issued to a taxpayer as it is by its very nature an emergent provision to immediately block the usage of the ITC credited in the ECL, which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has reasons to believe has been fraudulently availed or is ineligible. The concerned authorities are required to proceed to determine whether a taxpayer has wrongly availed or utilized the ITC, under Sections 73 or 74 of the CGST Act and if it is found that the taxpayer has wrongly availed of the ITC the proper officer is required to pass an order to determine the amount of tax, interest or penalty payable. The demand as raised are required to be determined under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act. 79. If at any stage the Commissioner or an offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1) of the Rules does not contemplate an order, the effect of which is to require a taxpayer to replenish his ECL with valid availment of ITC, to the extent of ITC used in the past, which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him has reasons to believe, was fraudulently availed or was ineligible. Such an interpretation would in effect amount to construe an Order under Rule 86A(1) of the Rules as an order for recovery of tax. This is obvious because the taxpayer would now have to incur a larger cash outflow for payment of taxes as he would be denied utilization of validly availed ITC, which he would require to accumulate to compensate for the ITC availed and utilized which the Commissioner or an officer authorized by him, has reasons t....