Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  The GSTN has issued an Advisory dated 21.04.2026 about the introduction of an Offline Tool for the Invoice Management System (IMS)  *  CBIC extends due dates for filing of FORM GSTR 3B  for the month of April 2026 *  Interest cannot be imposed in adjudication order, if not demanded/quantified in show cause notice : Allahabad HC *  Wheelchairs with toileting facility eligible for exemption: CESTAT affirms customs duty exemption to importer *  Industries urge GST council to allow inverted duty refunds on input services *  Tamil Nadu GST dept introduced virtual hearing facility for GST appeals under under section 107 of the TNGST act: detailed guidelines  *  CIC urges authorities to implement GST evasion complaint tracking system *  Even if the assessee opts "NO" for personal hearing in form DRC-06 ,The mandatory requirement under section 75(4) to grant opportunity of hearing cannot be waived:Gujarat High Court  *  Glufosinate imports curbs imposed by govt *  Government extends Re-import period for exported cut & polished diamonds *  CIC flags lack of tracking system for tax evasion complaints,urges GST authorities to improve transparency *  No Custodial Interrogation needed in GST fraud case based on documentary evidence already in Department's Possession : Chattisgarh HC *  Orders under section cannot be sustained if passed without considering the taxpayer's objections and without granting a personal hearing:Gujarat High Court *  Mere cancellation of supplier's registration cannot,by itself,justify denial of ITC or cancellation of the recipient's registration:Bombay High Court *  High Court sets aside GST notice citing factual errors and natural justice violations *  Provisional Bank Attachment under Section. 110 of Customs Act Unsustainable Beyond Statutory period without Extension order: Bombay HC orders to defreeze accounts *  Post Clearance MRP Alteration by Distributor Does not attract Differential Customs Duty: CESTAT *  DGFT Expands scope of 'Screws' classification under RoDTEP Scheme  *  E-way bills surze to all time high of 140.6 million in March *  GST Exemption Allowed on Pure Labour Services for Standalone Houses: AAR  *  GST Payable Only on Margin in Second-Hand Car Sales, Subject to Strict Conditions and No ITC Claim: AAR *  DGFT rolls out procedure for allocation of calcined coke *  GST portal update : Pre-deposit amount now editable in Appeals *  J&K HC declared TMT scrap a 'Specified Good' eligibile for GST refunds under Support Scheme  *  Pigmy agents are employees of banks; no GST can be levied on commission  paid to them : Karnataka HC *  DGFT Revises HS Code Description for Screws Under RoDTEP *  GST Registration Cancellation Invalid Without Proper Service of Notice: Allahabad High Court. *  Bengaluru CGST | GST Backlog Appeals Deadline Fixed at June 30, 2026 *  No Time Bar on Refund of Service Tax for Services Not Rendered: CESTAT  Remands Indiabulls Case for Unjust Enrichment Check. *  Supreme Court Holds Renewable Energy Incentive Must Benefit Generators, Not Be Adjusted in Tariff
Subject News *   Delhi HC Quashes Order, Says Reminder Cannot Validate Improperly Served GST SCN *  KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REMANDS GST SHORTFALL MATTER DUE TO ABSENCE OF PERSONAL HEARING   *  CESTAT cancels confiscation and penalties on imported computer cabinet cases: Custom duty restricted to 111 surplus units *  Deposit of tax during search or investigation cannot be treated as 'Voluntary Payment' : Bombay High Court *  Section 76 of the CGST cannot be invoked where the tax has already been duly deposited, even if through another registration of the same entity: Madras High Court *  Sec 74 allows use of material regardless of source; illegality or flaws in section 67 search do not vitiate valid adjudication: HC *  Inter-State transfer of ITC on Amalgamation permissible as given under section 18(3) read with rule 41 of the CGST rules, 2017: Gujarat High Court *  HC: No GST on commisson paid to Pigmy Agents *  IGST refund denial on illegible bill of lading invalid absent chance to furnish docs; merit reconsideration in appeals directed: HC *  ITC is not admissible on GST paid on leasehold rights of land used fpr setting up an air seperation plant: AAAR,Tamil Nadu *  GST: No penalty under Section 74 after voluntary ITC reversal due to non-existent supplier : High Court *  TN AAAR denies GST ITC on Land Lease under Sec. 17(5)(d) for setting up plant and machinery *  GST proceedings quashed as notices sent to old address, despite updated address in registration *  Importer Can’t Be Penalised for Alleged IGCR Procedural Lapses Without Evidence of Departmental Error: CESTAT *  Structured Healthcare Training Not ‘Charitable Activity’, 18% GST Payable: AAR  *  CESTAT As The Appellate Authority For Central Sales Tax Disputes: A Paradigm Shift Under Finance Act, 2023 *   Rs. 25K Cost Imposed On SGST Joint Commissioner for Attaching Bank  Accounts Without Forming Mandatory “Opinion”: Bombay HC *   Ex-Parte GST Order Without Hearing Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka  High Court Quashes Adjudication and Bank Attachment.  *   Retrospective GST Cancellation Can’t Invalidate Genuine Transactions:  Jaipur Commissioner (Appeals) Quashes Rs. 95,670 ITC Demand. *   GST Pre-Deposit Non-Compliance: Allahabad High Court Allows Appeal  Subject to Rs. 30 Lakh Balance Deposit, Recognises Offline Filing. *  Documentary Nature of Evidence: Allahabad High Court Grants Bail in Rs. 32.66 Crore Fake ITC Fraud Case *  Supreme Court Flags Systemic Bias in Army’s Permanent Commission Process for Women Officers *  Re-Determination of Land Compensation Can Be Based on Appellate Court Awards, Clarifies Scope of S. 28-A: Supreme Court. *  Supreme Court Imposes Rs. 5 Lakh Costs On Rent Authority Officer For Acting Beyond Jurisdiction. *  DGGI Meerut | Court Denies Bail to Accused in Claiming Fake ITC And Export Refunds *  Denial of GST Rate Revision Benefit to Contractor Violates Article 14: Rajasthan HC *  GST Registration Cancellation for Non-Filing of Returns: Gauhati High Court Directs Restoration on Compliance. *   Supreme Court Quashes FEMA Adjudication Orders, Revives Proceedings at  Show Cause Stage. *   Higher Rank, Harsher Punishment Justified: Supreme Court Restores Dismissal  of Bank Manager in Misappropriation Case. *   Limitation for Export Refund to Be Counted from Foreign Exchange Realisation,  Not From Export Invoices Issuance: CESTAT  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2015-16/3001

Regarding refund of duty deposited during course of investigation

Case-HINDUSTAN GRANITES Versus A.D.G., DRI, ZONAL UNIT, BANGALORE
 
Citation-2015 (326) E.L.T. 106 (Kar.)

Brief Facts-In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores. According to the petitioner, the said amount of Rupees Two Crores was collected by the respondents under threat and without the authority of law.
It is not disputed by the learnedcounsel for the respondents that the respondents have received Rupees Two Crores from the petitioner in June, 2012. However he referred to Section 28(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Para 7 of the statement of objections filed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores.
However, even after lapse of two years, no demand for any duty is made against the petitioner and it is not the case of the respondents that, the petitioner, as on today, is due in any sum to the respondents, either by way of duty, interest or penalty.

Appelants Contention-In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores. According to the petitioner, the said amount of Rupees Two Crores was collected by the respondents under threat and without the authority of law.

Respondents Contention-They referred to Section 28(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Para 7 of the statement of objections filed by the respondents and submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount of Rupees Two Crores. Para 7 of the statement of objections reads as follows:
“7. It is submitted that, during the course of investigation, the petitioner who is well aware of his acts of evasion to tax and probable tax liability to be payable after investigation, to reduce future interest and penalty, on his own ascertainment of such duty, voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- with the competent authority and informed the said fact of deposit in writing as contemplated under law vide Annexure-C. The contents of Annexure-C itself shows the deposit is made voluntarily to prove his bona fides and to avoid interest and penalty later.”
He also referred to the letter dated 6-6-2012 (Annexure-A) written by the petitioner which reads as follows :
“With reference to the ongoing investigation conducted against M/s. Hindustan Granites and M/s. Hindustan Marble and Granite, we have to state that to exhibit that we are a bona fide industrial unit doing business with an unblemished track record,have deposited a sum of Rs. 200 lakhs (Rupees Two Hundred lakhs only). This may please be treated as pre-deposit without prejudice to our rights to claim refund in the event the case would reach finality in our favour.”
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-As no demand is made for any amount against the petitioner, They find no justification for continued retention of the amount of Rupees Two Crores. It is unnecessary to examine the submission of the petitioner that Rupees Two Crores was collected under threat. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the amount of Rupees Two Crores is lying in deposit with Respondent No. 1. As there is no legal justification for continued retention of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2 crores, they direct Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores to the petitioner, expeditiously and in any event, within six weeks from today. At this stage, learned counsel on both sides submit that if the respondents issue a show cause notice to the petitioner within six weeks from today, there is no need for Respondent No. 1 to refund the amount of Rupees Two Crores and it shall be treated as deposit towards duty. Their submission is placed on record. Ordered accordingly. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
 
Decision-Petition disposed of

Comment-The gist of the case is that according the deposit of duty during the course of investigation even if the show cause notice is not issued is liable to be refunded, if no amount is legally due from petitioner either as duty or penalty. There is no justification in retention of amount by Revenue. But in case a show cause notice is issued within six weeks, then amount need not be refunded, and it shall be treated as deposit towards duty. And, accordingly the writ petition is disposed off.
 
Prepared By-Neelam Jain
 
 

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com