2021 (11) TMI 974 - HC - GST

Seeking withdrawal of petition - Reversal of input tax credit - seeking declaration that the reversal is done under force and coercion on the date of search conducted at residential premises of the director and made under the signature of the director who is not authorized for the same - reversal of refund of Input Tax Credit - seeking restraint from coercing the Petitioner to make any payment without issuing notice under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to provide copy of panchnama with regard to search which was conducted at the office premises of the Petitioner - seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to provide the DSC / digital signatures of the directors of the Petitioner - seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to the Respondents to provide the copies of documents that have been seized under the provisions of Section 67(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that if Mr.Tarun Jain has not joined the investigation, the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law - The statement made by learned counsel for petitioner is accepted by this Court petitioner is held bound by the same and accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reversal of input tax credit under force and coercion
2. Refund of input tax credit with interest
3. Restraining from coercing payment without notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act
4. Providing copy of panchnama regarding search
5. Providing DSC/digital signatures of directors
6. Providing copies of seized documents
7. Compliance with court directions for investigation

Analysis:

1. Reversal of Input Tax Credit under Force and Coercion:
The petitioner sought a declaration to declare the reversal of input tax credit by the respondent as illegal, claiming it was done under force and coercion during a search conducted at the director's residential premises. However, the petitioner later withdrew the petition unconditionally, expressing no intention to press for the refund or reversal of input tax credit until the investigation is complete. The court accepted the withdrawal, holding the petitioner bound by the decision, with no liberty granted.

2. Refund of Input Tax Credit with Interest:
The petitioner had requested a writ mandating the respondents to refund the input tax credit amounting to a specific sum, along with interest. Despite the initial prayer, the petitioner decided to withdraw the petition, indicating a change in stance regarding the refund claim until the investigation concludes.

3. Restraining from Coercing Payment without Notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act:
Another relief sought was to direct the respondents to refrain from coercing the petitioner to make any payment without issuing a notice under Section 74(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and follow the prescribed procedure. However, the withdrawal of the petition rendered this issue moot in the current context.

4. Providing Copy of Panchnama Regarding Search:
The petitioner had also requested a mandamus to provide a copy of the panchnama related to the search conducted at their office and residential premises. This demand was part of the initial prayers, but the withdrawal of the petition led to the dismissal of this request as well.

5. Providing DSC/Digital Signatures of Directors:
A mandamus was sought to compel the respondents to provide the DSC/digital signatures of the directors of the petitioner. This request, along with the other prayers, became irrelevant following the withdrawal of the petition.

6. Providing Copies of Seized Documents:
The petitioner had asked for copies of documents seized under the provisions of the CGST Act. However, with the withdrawal of the petition, this request for providing copies of seized documents was also dismissed along with the rest of the prayers.

7. Compliance with Court Directions for Investigation:
The court noted that the petitioner had not complied with the directions issued on a previous date regarding the director's participation in the investigation. The court clarified that if the director had not joined the investigation, the respondents were within their rights to take appropriate action as per the law. This issue highlighted the importance of complying with court directives in legal proceedings.