MAHAVIR SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ANTI-EVASION CELL – I & ORS.

📅 June 8, 2026 👤 Team Batuk Consultancy 📂 GST, GST Case Laws

High Court, Delhi

Sanjeev Sachdeva, Justice & Ravinder Dudeja, Justice

MAHAVIR SINGH

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ANTI-EVASION CELL – I & ORS.

W.P.(C) 15845/2023 dated 26.02.2024

W.P.(C) 15845/2023 dated 26.02.2024Law : GST

Act Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

Relevant Section : Section 50, 67, 73 & 74

Rule Number : Rule 56 & 142

Rule Name : Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017

Decision : In favour of assessee

Refund of deposit – reversal of ITC – Petitioner seeks refund of an amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) which was recovered from the Petitioner sans authority of law during the search proceedings carried out on 07.01.2023, by coercing him to reverse the Input Tax Credit done on 07.01.2023 through FORM GST DRC-03. The amount was allegedly recovered from them during search proceedings. The search operation commenced on dated 07.01.2023 at 03:15 PM and after some initial inspection, a notice under Rule 56(18) of the Delhi GST Rules, 2017 had been issued by the Respondents directing Petitioner to produce the records for the period of 2017-2018 on the same day i.e. 07.01.2023 by 5:00 PM itself. The Petitioner, pre-typed statement were printed by the officers of the Respondents from the Petitioner’s computer and Petitioner was coerced to sign the same. – Held That – In in the instant case, the deposit made by the Petitioner before the search ended and the officers left, 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. Therefore, the amounts that were deposited on behalf of petitioner lacked voluntariness. Accordingly, said amount are liable to be returned with interest – Respondents are directed to, within four weeks, refund the amount of Rs. 35,00,000/- to the Petitioner alongwith statutory interest @ 6% p.a. from date of deposit till repayment.

Represented By:

Counsel for the Petitioner: Preetam Singh, Advocate.

MAHAVIR SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ANTI-EVASION CELL – I & ORS.

MAHAVIR SINGH v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, ANTI-EVASION CELL – I & ORS.

🔒 Premium Content

Quick Link

Get In Touch