Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2023 (12) TMI 293 - HC - GSTRefund of amount deposited by the petitioner during the course of search and inspection - petitioner claims that it was coerced to deposit the aforesaid amount and that the same cannot be considered as a deposit done voluntarily under Section 74(5) of the Central Goods Services Tax Act 2017 - HELD THAT - A plain reading of the show cause notices would indicate that the same are premised on the mismatch of the ITC in terms of form GSTR-3B and form GSTR-2A. It is also material to note that although the show cause notices indicate that the petitioner had deposited the tax and penalty on 29.07.2022 the quantum of proposed demand did not provide for any credit for the same. It is apparent that such show cause notices are in terms of Section 74(7) of the CGST Act inasmuch as they are not limited to the amount which falls short of the amount payable after accounting for the tax deposited - the respondents have neither acknowledged the amounts deposited by the taxpayer on 29.07.2022 nor have they granted the benefit of the said deposit while issuing the proposed demand under Section 74(7) of the CGST Act. In Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer Ors. 2022 (12) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT a Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that not following the stipulated procedure would also lead to the conclusion that the payments were not voluntary. Whilst the petitioner has accepted that there was a mismatch in its return regarding the ITC he did not acknowledge that the ITC was incorrectly availed. On the contrary the Director of the petitioner had acknowledged that in case there was any tax liability the same would be paid with interest and penalty. Admittedly the respondents have not ascertained the said liability and no notice has been issued to the petitioner as contemplated under Rule 142 (1A) of the CGST Rules communicating the details of any tax interest or liability as ascertained - the petitioner s contention is accepted that the payments made by it were not voluntary payments but under compelling circumstances. The respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited by the petitioner by making a payment of Rs.23, 70, 000/- in cash along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 13.12.2022 till the date of payment - the present petition is allowed.
|