SUSHIL KUMAR v. DELHI STATE GST GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS
High Court, Delhi
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice & Ravinder Dudeja, Justice
SUSHIL KUMAR
v.
DELHI STATE GST GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS
W.P.(C) 15519/2023 dated 26.02.2024
Law : GST
Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017
Relevant Section : Section 50, 73, 74 & 79
Rule Number : Rule 142
Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Rules, 2017
Decision : In favour of assessee
Refund of amount deposited during investigation proceedings – Recovery of wrongful input tax credit -During the search operation, documents and other records were inspected and consequently, as per the Petitioner, it was orally and vaguely alleged the Petitioner has evaded GST on its transactions. Further, the statement of the authorized representative of the petitioner was also recorded under duress and coercion. Petitioner seeks refund of the integrated GST amounting to Rs. 40,06,342/- (Rs.15,06,342/- towards stock variation and 25,00,000/- towards alleged wrongful input tax credit) recovered from the petitioner without authority of law. – Held That – In the instant case, the deposit made by the Petitioner was at 3:10 and 3:18 AM during the search operation being carried out which continued till 5:00 AM The fact that Petitioner was made to deposit the amount at 3:10 and 3:18 AM before the search ended and the officers left at 5:00 AM, shows that the deposit was not voluntary and contrary to the CBIC Instruction No. 01/2022-2023 dated 25.05.2022. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the deposit was voluntary for the reason that there is no material placed on record by respondent to show as to why petitioner would voluntarily deposit the said amount when there was no claim made against the petitioner as on the date of deposit, cannot be accepted. There are merit in the said submission of learned counsel for the Respondent and hold that no interest would be liable to be paid on the amount deposited by way of an adjustment of the credit amount standing in the Electronic Credit Ledger, unless an appropriate application had already been made, prior to the alleged non-voluntary deposit, claiming refund or as an adjustment towards tax due.
Represented By:
Counsel for the Petitioner: A. Kumar & Pravesh B., Advocates.
Continue Reading...
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
This is only a preview of the article. The complete article contains detailed analysis, examples, notifications, circulars, case laws, interpretations and practical guidance available to premium members.
🔒 Premium Content
Subscribe to access complete articles, notifications, circulars, case laws, downloads, videos and premium resources.
Become Premium Member