9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 1660 - HC - GSTAuthority and jurisdiction of Revenue to retain substantial amounts as voluntarily deposited under protest by the petitioner - HELD THAT - Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the position in law it is intended that the Department hears the petitioner on these issues and takes an appropriate call on the contentions as raised by the petitioner after hearing the petitioner and by passing an appropriate reasoned order on the contentions as urged by the petitioner and in the light of the observations made by the appellate authority. In fact such issues have been raised by the petitioner in its recent representation dated 24 May 2023 as addressed to the Deputy Commissioner CGST CEX Mumbai Central Commissionerate which also has so far not decided. Let such exercise be undertaken within two weeks from today. Accordingly stand over to 09 October 2023.
In the case before the Bombay High Court, the petitioner, represented by Mr. Abhishek Rastogi and others, challenges the authority of the revenue department to retain a sum of Rs. 56,19,84,075, which was "voluntarily deposited under protest" without any show cause notice being issued. The funds have been with the department since 2012-2013, comprising service tax and interest amounts.
The petitioner argues that the Order-in-Original does not comply with a previous appellate order and that there is no legal basis for the revenue to retain these amounts, especially in light of Supreme Court rulings and Article 265 of the Constitution. The petitioner, a reputed bank, contends that the department's retention of funds is unjustified. The court, acknowledging the unique circumstances and legal position, directs the department to hear the petitioner's arguments and issue a "reasoned order" within two weeks. The petitioner's counsel, Mr. Rastogi, further argues that the audit is outdated, no show cause notice was issued, and questions the legitimacy of issuing such a notice after 11 years. The court has kept all contentions of the parties open, and the matter is adjourned to 09 October 2023 for further proceedings.
|
