2024 (8) TMI 1386 - HC - GST

Refund of amount deposited under compulsion - provisional attachment of bank accounts - HELD THAT - It is considered apposite to issue any directions for refund of the deposit in these proceedings. However, it is clarified that the petitioners would be entitled to apply for refund of the same in accordance with law without waiting for the adjudication of the show cause notice. Insofar as the petitioner s request for return of the articles and documents seized during the course of the proceedings are concerned, the respondent states that all hard disks and other articles have been returned except two laptops. He submits that two laptops have been stolen from the office of the GST Authorities and an FIR in this regard had been lodged. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to orders provisionally attaching bank accounts
2. Request for return of seized assets
3. Claim for refund of deposited amount

Analysis:

Challenge to Provisional Attachment of Bank Accounts:
The petitioners challenged the orders dated 20.11.2023 provisionally attaching their bank accounts. The court allowed limited operations of the accounts for the company to function. The Commissioner justified the freezing of accounts in a detailed order dated 16.04.2024. The petitioners did not press for relief regarding the freezing of bank accounts. Thus, this issue was resolved.

Return of Seized Assets:
The petitioners sought the return of laptops, CPUs, mobile phones, and other documents seized during search operations. As per the CGST Act, the petitioners are entitled to copies of seized documents. The Commissioner allowed the petitioners to obtain copies of the seized data. The Commissioner can retain the seized items until required, but not beyond 30 days from the notice issuance. The Commissioner must ensure the petitioners have access to the data on the seized devices.

Claim for Refund of Deposited Amount:
The petitioners claimed they were coerced to deposit Rs. 22,00,000 during a search and seizure raid. The petitioners contended that the deposit was made under protest and compulsion by the GST Officer. The respondents disputed this claim. The court did not issue directions for refund in this proceeding. However, the petitioners were allowed to apply for refund in accordance with the law without waiting for the adjudication of the show cause notice.

Conclusion:
The petition challenging the provisional attachment of bank accounts was resolved as the petitioners did not press for relief. The issue of return of seized assets was addressed by allowing the petitioners access to copies of the seized data. The claim for refund of the deposited amount was not granted in this proceeding, but the petitioners were permitted to apply for a refund following legal procedures. The court clarified that the petitioners could seek compensation for any unrecovered seized items. The petition was disposed of with no further orders necessary.