The consideration of the right of refund would be independent of the process of investigation and the two cannot be linked together.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017—Refund – The petitioner sought directions to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 27,51,44,157/- illegally collected from the petitioner, issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. The petitioner operates an e-commerce platform under the name Swiggy. The petitioner submitted that on 29.11.2019 during the course of investigation, they were forced to make payment of Rs. 15.00 Crore under the threat of arrest of its Directors and accordingly, on 30.11.2019 at about 4.00 a.m., a sum of Rs. 15.00 Crore was deposited. On 27.12.2019 they were again forced to make further payment of tax of Rs. 12,51,44,157/- and even after ten months, no show cause notice was issued to them. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has resorted to wrongful availment of ITC on the invoices without actual receipt of services and the deposits made by the petitioner were voluntary. The petitioner counsel submitted that payments made were 'under protest' which could be gathered from the communication made by the petitioner to the Department. The court observed that they do not desire to place any sort of fetter on the power of investigation and it would be unwise to impose any kind of time limit. The consideration of the right of refund in the present factual matrix would be independent of the process of investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the refund applications are to be considered and suitable orders be passed within a period of four weeks.
The consideration of the right of refund would be independent of the process of investigation and the two cannot be linked together.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017—Refund – The petitioner sought directions to the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 27,51,44,157/- illegally collected from the petitioner, issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. The petitioner operates an e-commerce platform under the name Swiggy. The petitioner submitted that on 29.11.2019 during the course of investigation, they were forced to make payment of Rs. 15.00 Crore under the threat of arrest of its Directors and accordingly, on 30.11.2019 at about 4.00 a.m., a sum of Rs. 15.00 Crore was deposited. On 27.12.2019 they were again forced to make further payment of tax of Rs. 12,51,44,157/- and even after ten months, no show cause notice was issued to them. The respondent submitted that the petitioner has resorted to wrongful availment of ITC on the invoices without actual receipt of services and the deposits made by the petitioner were voluntary. The petitioner counsel submitted that payments made were 'under protest' which could be gathered from the communication made by the petitioner to the Department. The court observed that they do not desire to place any sort of fetter on the power of investigation and it would be unwise to impose any kind of time limit. The consideration of the right of refund in the present factual matrix would be independent of the process of investigation.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court directed that the refund applications are to be considered and suitable orders be passed within a period of four weeks.