9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Delhi High Court in case titled as Vallabh Textiles vs. Senior Intelligence Officer and others, [ 2022 (12) TMI 1038 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] and judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in case titled as Union of India and others vs. Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd and Others [ 2022 (3) TMI 625 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ], has observed that any amount deposited voluntarily by the petitioner during search would not amount to collection of tax under Article 265 of the Constitution and an amount collected without authority of law, would not amount to collection of tax and the same would amount to depriving a person of his property without any authority of law and would infringe his rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India as well. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act read with CGST Act and had submitted two separate refund claims before the jurisdictional GST authorities seeking refund of accumulated input tax credit along with supporting documents including the service agreement between itself and WECA HK. 3. It was submitted that the refund was initially sanctioned by the authorities of the revenue and was also disbursed to them by confirming the petitioners as exporter of service. The adjudicating orders issued to the petitioners in this regard, are reflected as follows:- Sr. No. Relevant period for which refund claimed Refund Claimed (INR) Refund Sanctioned (INR) Refund Application Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng respondent No.1 and its agents to forthwith refund of the amount i.e. Rs.83,89,196/- along with interest. 6. The petitioners have also prayed for staying the operation of circular No.3/3/2017 dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure P-5) and prohibiting the respondents from assuming jurisdiction on the basis of the illegal search conducted by them and also challenged the vires of CGST Act as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. On 13.04.2023, Mr. Amrinder Singh, Advocate after obtaining no objection from the previous counsel Mr. Abhinav Sood, has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners and has stated that he restricts prayer of the petitioners to the extent of giving directions to the respondents to refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondents for imposing penalty or raising any fresh demand. 11. This very issue has been examined by this Court in Ditwakar Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. s case (supra) and Modern Insecticides Ltd s case (supra). In these cases, this Court while relying upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in case titled as Vallabh Textiles vs. Senior Intelligence Officer and others, 2022 SCC Online Del 4508 and judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in case titled as Union of India and others vs. Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd and others, ILR 2022 Karnataka 3077, has observed that any amount deposited voluntarily by the petitioner during search would not amount to collection of tax under Article 265 of the Constitution and an amount collected with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
