2022 (6) TMI 135 - HC - GST

Seeking return/refund the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- along with interest, which was illegally collected from the petitioner - HELD THAT - The amount voluntarily deposited by the petitioner under Section 73(5) of CGST Act, 2017, is reflected from the receipt itself. Therefore, there are no good reason to direct for refund of the amount at this stage. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3 states on instructions that notice under relevant provisions of CGST Act, 2017, is likely to be issued to the petitioner shortly for adjudication of the case on merit - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for refund of amount collected by respondents.
2. Voluntary deposit by petitioner under Section 73(5) of CGST Act, 2017.
3. Adjudication notice under relevant provisions of CGST Act, 2017.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent nos. 2 and 3 to refund Rs. 25,00,000 along with interest, collected on 09.04.2021, which was allegedly done illegally and without authority of law. The petitioner had voluntarily deposited Rs. 50,00,000 on the same date as per the DRC-03 document. The Senior Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 argued that the petitioner admitted his liability to deposit around Rs. 50,00,000 in his voluntary statement on 09.04.2021. The court noted that the amount deposited voluntarily by the petitioner under Section 73(5) of the CGST Act, 2017, was reflected in the receipt. Consequently, the court found no reason to order a refund at this stage and dismissed the writ petition.

2. The Senior Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 informed that a notice under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, would be issued to the petitioner for adjudication of the case on merit. The court directed the respondents to issue any such notice expeditiously for the adjudication of the demand. Therefore, while the petition for refund was dismissed, the matter was directed for further adjudication under the CGST Act, 2017.

3. In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition seeking a refund of the amount collected by the respondents, as the voluntary deposit made by the petitioner was acknowledged and reflected in the records. The court also directed the issuance of a notice to the petitioner for the adjudication of the demand under the relevant provisions of the CGST Act, 2017.