In the instant case, the petitioners having made payment under section 74(5), they appear to have informed the Proper Officer of such payment in the Form GST DRC-03 as contemplated in Rule 142(2) of the said Rules. It is needless to say that the said payment shall be dealt with or adjusted by the concerned respondent No.3 in accordance with law more particularly as per the provisions contained in section 74 of the CGST Act.
Section 70 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Summons —–The petitioner challenged the Summons dated 12.4.2021 issued under Section 70 of the Act, 2017. The petitioners sought directions against the respondent to issue refund/allow recredit of INR 3 Crore paid by the petitioners on 9.2.2021 and sought direction to quash and set aside the impugned Circular dated 5.7.2017 in connection with the assignment of functions to the officers as the ‘proper officers’ in relation to the various functions. The petitioner’s manufacturing unit was visited by the respondent and a sum of Rs. 3 crore was recovered on the alleged incorrect IGST refunds. Said payment was made by them under extreme duress and under protest. The petitioner submitted that they are facing two parallel investigating proceedings i.e the proceedings initiated pursuant to the communication dated 11.11.2020 by the DRI, Kolkata Zonal Unit and the proceedings instituted by the respondent No.3 vide the impugned summons, invoking Section 70 of the Act. The court observed that petitioner’s contention that two parallel proceedings in connection with the same issue were not sustainable. Further cause of payment has been shown as “voluntary” under section 74(5). The reasons have been mentioned as enquiry in connection with the incorrect claim of double benefit, that is exemption of IGST, Advance Authorization and Refund of IGST, under protest.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed the petition.