High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Divorce Cannot Be Granted Merely on WhatsApp Chats: Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree Based on Unproved Electronic Evidence State Cannot Demand Settlement Amount Yet Withhold Legitimate Refund: Bombay High Court Strikes Down MVAT Settlement Order Surveyor’s Report Is Not Sacrosanct; Arbitral Award Ignoring Vital Evidence Is Perverse: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Insurance Arbitration Award When Victim Lives Under Exclusive Control Of Accused, Burden Shifts To Accused To Explain What Happened: Calcutta High Court Medical Evidence Clearly Indicating Suicide Cannot Be Overlooked, Prosecution Must Prove Homicidal Death Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Candidates Acted With Full Knowledge of Consequences': Kerala High Court Reverses Order for Refund of 10% Exit Fee in Medical PG Mop-Up Admissions Dispensing with Departmental Inquiry Without Material is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Sets Aside Dismissal of Delhi Police Constable Power Of Attorney Holder Authorized To Enforce Pre-Emption Right Can File Suit, Death Of Principal Does Not Bar Legal Heirs: Orissa High Court Government Servant Convicted In Criminal Case Can Be Dismissed Without Departmental Enquiry: Tripura High Court Upholds Teacher’s Dismissal RTI Cannot Be Used To Bypass Statutory Bar On Police Case Diaries: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Penalty Against Police Officers Externment Cannot Be Based On Police Report And Stale Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes District Magistrate’s Order Even Exonerated Accused Can Be Summoned During Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Summoning Under Section 358 BNSS Benefit of Doubt Acquittal Not Equal to Honourable Acquittal: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Police Constable Candidate Madras High Court Allows NEET-Failed Student To Appear In CBSE Class XII Mathematics Exam After Last-Minute Subject Switch By Parents Salary of Parents Cannot Be Used to Deny OBC Non-Creamy Layer Status in Absence of Post Equivalence: Supreme Court Father Who Rapes Minor Daughter Cannot Seek Leniency: Bombay High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Construction Of Toilet Is Bare Necessity For Proper Use Of Premises, Expression "Own Use" Not Confined To Landlord's Personal Physical Use: Calcutta High Court 353 IPC | Conviction Cannot Rest On Uncorroborated Testimony Of Sole Witness When Other Evidence Contradicts Occurrence: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal 250 BNSS | 60-Day Discharge Period Is Procedural, Does Not Extinguish Accused's Right To Seek Discharge: Gujarat High Court Section 45 PMLA Cannot Become an Instrument of Endless Incarceration: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in ₹18 Crore Scholarship Scam Case Land Acquisition — Heirs Who Slept on Rights for 23 Years Cannot Claim Ignorance to Revive Dead Challenge: Karnataka High Court Institutional Hearing Is No Violation of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court Upholds BPCL’s Termination of Decades-Old Petroleum Dealership Witnesses Not Expected To Recount Past Incidents With Mathematical Precision, Minor Contradictions Don't Demolish Credibility: Orissa High Court If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H 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