Facts of the
Case
The Petitioner, Sushil Kumar, engaged in
manufacturing and trading of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, was subjected to a
GST search operation on 16–17 November 2023 based on allegations of
suppression of transactions, stock discrepancies, and tax evasion.
During the search proceedings, which continued
overnight, the authorities allegedly compelled the Petitioner to deposit ₹40,06,342
(₹15,06,342 towards stock variation and ₹25,00,000 towards alleged wrongful
ITC) through Form GST DRC-03, without issuance of any formal demand or
show cause notice.
The Petitioner contended that:
- The payment was made under duress and coercion during the
search (around 3 AM).
- No acknowledgment in Form GST DRC-04 was issued.
- No opportunity was provided to explain discrepancies.
Accordingly, the Petitioner sought refund of the
amount along with interest.
Issues
Involved
- Whether GST deposited during search proceedings without issuance of
notice can be treated as voluntary payment?
- Whether such recovery during search violates provisions of the CGST
Act, 2017 and CBIC instructions?
- Whether the Petitioner is entitled to refund with interest?
- Whether interest is payable on amounts debited from the Electronic
Credit Ledger?
Petitioner’s
Arguments
- The deposit made at 3 AM during search proceedings cannot be
termed voluntary.
- No proceedings under Section 73 or 74 CGST Act had been
initiated at the time of payment.
- Recovery without due process violates statutory safeguards and
CBIC Instruction No. 01/2022-23.
- Relied on M/s Vallabh Textiles vs Senior Intelligence Officer
(Delhi HC) holding coerced deposits refundable with interest.
- Absence of DRC-04 acknowledgment indicates procedural
violation.
Respondent’s
Arguments
- The payment was made voluntarily by the Petitioner.
- Proceedings under Section 73 CGST Act had subsequently been
initiated through issuance of a show cause notice.
- Amount debited from Electronic Credit Ledger does not
attract interest.
Court’s
Findings / Order
The Delhi High Court held:
- Deposits made during search at 3:10 AM and 3:18 AM clearly
indicate lack of voluntariness.
- Recovery during search proceedings is contrary to law and CBIC
instructions, which prohibit coercive recovery without due process.
- No material was produced by the department to prove voluntary
payment.
- The deposit was therefore coercive and without authority of law.
Directions
Issued:
- Refund of ₹15,06,342 (cash component) with 6% interest
per annum.
- Re-credit of ₹25,00,000 (ITC component) to Electronic Credit
Ledger.
- No interest payable on ITC portion unless refund application was
filed earlier.
- Refund is without prejudice to ongoing proceedings under
Section 73.
Important
Clarifications by the Court
- No recovery can be made during search
unless supported by adjudication.
- Payments during search must be truly voluntary, not
influenced by coercion.
- CBIC Instruction dated 25.05.2022 is binding and must be
strictly followed.
- Deposits made during search before officers leave premises
are presumed non-voluntary.
- Interest is not payable on Electronic Credit Ledger amounts
unless claimed properly.
Sections
Involved
- Section 73, CGST Act, 2017 –
Determination of tax (non-fraud cases)
- Section 74, CGST Act, 2017 –
Determination of tax (fraud cases)
- Section 79, CGST Act, 2017 –
Recovery proceedings
- Section 50, CGST Act, 2017 –
Interest on delayed payment
- Rule 142, CGST Rules, 2017 –
Demand and recovery procedure
- CBIC Instruction No. 01/2022-2023 (GST Investigation)
Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/SAS26022024CW155192023_170907.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment