Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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