Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders Refund of Seized Amount in GST Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Tiwari, has directed the Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, to refund an amount of Rs. 2.54 crores to Modern Insecticides Ltd. and another party. The court also ordered the supply of a copy of the Panchnama and other electronic gadgets that were seized from the petitioners' premises during a search operation.

The case, bearing CWP No. 8035 of 2021, involved a dispute over the refund claim and the seizure of documents and electronic gadgets by the respondents. The petitioners sought a direction from the court to refund the amount and provide necessary documentation for compliance purposes.

The petitioners argued that the amount was voluntarily deposited by them and that no notice under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act was served. They contended that the respondents had not initiated proceedings within the specified period and, therefore, should refund the deposited amount.

On the other hand, the respondents claimed that an investigation was still ongoing, and no show cause notice had been issued. They argued that the deposit made by the petitioners was subject to further assessment and determination of tax liability.

After careful consideration, the court examined the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, including Section 74, and Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The court relied on the precedent set by a similar case, Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer and others, wherein it was held that a deposit made during a search could not be deemed as voluntary.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, emphasizing that no notice had been issued within the specified period despite the deposit being made. Accordingly, the court ordered the respondents to return the amount of Rs. 2.54 crores to the petitioners, along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of deposit until the payment is made.

Date: 19th April 2023

Modern Insecticides Ltd. and another vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax and another       

Latest Legal News