Aimlay Private Limited (Through The Director Sh. Rakesh Gupta) & Ors. vs. Commissioner Of Central Tax (Delhi West) & Ors.

Facts

The petitioners, Aimlay Private Limited and its directors, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 20.11.2023 by the Commissioner, Central Tax, Delhi West, provisionally attaching their bank accounts. They also sought the return of seized assets like laptops and CPUs from search operations on 16.11.2023, and the refund of Rs. 22,00,000/- allegedly deposited under compulsion. The Court had previously allowed limited operations of the bank accounts, and the Commissioner issued a speaking order justifying the attachment. The petitioners did not press the relief regarding bank account freezing at this stage. The Court noted that seized documents and data should be returned within 30 days of notice issuance, and copies should be provided to the petitioners.

Held

The Court did not issue directions for the refund of Rs. 22,00,000/- in these proceedings, clarifying that the petitioners are entitled to apply for a refund in accordance with law without waiting for the adjudication of any show cause notice. Regarding the seized articles, the respondents stated that all hard disks and other articles have been returned except for two laptops, which were reported stolen from the GST Authorities' office, and an FIR was lodged. The Court clarified that all rights of the petitioners to seek compensation for the stolen laptops are reserved. The petition was disposed of with no further orders required.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the refund of Rs. 22,00,000/- allegedly deposited under compulsion during search and seizure operations, considering the challan indicates a voluntary deposit and the respondents dispute coercion? (Section 67 of CGST Act, 2017, and principles of voluntary vs. compelled deposit). 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the return of seized assets, including laptops, CPUs, and mobile phones, and what is the timeline for their return or provision of copies of data? (Section 67(2), 67(3), and 67(5) of CGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: The deposit of Rs. 22,00,000/- was made under protest and under compulsion by the GST Officer, who coerced the Director to withdraw funds from his personal account. They rely on this Court's decisions in M/s Uflix Industries v. The Additional Director General and Vallabh Textiles v. Senior Intelligence Officer. Respondent's arguments: The respondents dispute the claim of compulsion. They argue that the officer accompanied the Director to the bank to facilitate withdrawal from his account, as the directors' accounts were attached. They also point out that the deposit was made after the Director's statement was recorded and that the challan indicates a voluntary deposit.