Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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