9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2021. One fails to understand as to how the summon dated 14.11.2021 could have been issued and directed the appellant to appear on 01.11.2021. It is not clear whether there is a typographical error. Be that as it may, the appellant sent a representation seeking adjournment of the hearing on health grounds. After stating out certain other factual details, the appellant stated that he retracts statement recorded by the Officers as well as the payment of ₹ 47,99,184/- which was shown to be made voluntarily by the appellant in form DRC-03. The learned writ court had directed the respondent to consider the said representation wherein there was retraction regarding the money paid. No useful purpose would be served by directing the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andamus to command the respondents that the search and seizure conducted in the office premises of the appellant on 01.11.2021 as against the provisions of Central Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the CGST Act); for a direction upon the respondents to return a sum of ₹ 47,99,184/- (Rupees Forty Seven lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred Eighty Four only) which, according to the appellant, was forcibly obtained from the appellant and to the same effect an interim order was also sought for. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the concerned respondent to dispose of the representation given by the appellant dated 30.12.2021 within the time frame. Aggrieved by such order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he money paid. In our considered view, no useful purpose would be served by directing the authority to consider the representation made on 30.12.2021 since the show cause notice is yet to be issued by the concerned respondent/authority. The question whether the payment of ₹ 47,99,184/- was voluntarily made or not also is a factual matter to be decided by the adjudicating authority and not in a writ petition. Admittedly, the payment has been made through banking channels in the statutory form presumably by way of e-payment. Therefore, the onus is on the appellant to establish that the payment was extracted by undue force and threat etc. Since the show cause notice is yet to be issued by the adjudicating authority and also being caut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
