Satish Kumar Agarwal vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Satish Kumar Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging the recovery of Rs. 75,00,000/- by the respondents, Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate General of Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit & Ors. The petitioner alleged that this amount was recovered during search and seizure proceedings on October 17, 2023, and subsequently treated as a voluntary payment. The CGST authorities disputed the petitioner's assertion regarding the recovery. The Court considered the matter without delving into the merits of the allegations, aiming to resolve differences regarding the alleged recovery and allow the petitioner to challenge the impugned order.
Held
The Court held that the sum of Rs. 75,00,000/-, paid by the petitioner during the search and seizure proceedings on October 17, 2023, shall be treated as a pre-deposit for the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the financial years 2017-18 to 2022-23. This direction is contingent upon the petitioner filing the statutory appeal within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court clarified that if the appeal is not filed within the stipulated period, this direction would not benefit the petitioner, and the writ petition would stand automatically dismissed. The Court explicitly stated that it had not examined the merits of the case, opting to allow the petitioner access to the alternative remedy of appeal to address the disputed recovery and the impugned order. The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal uninfluenced by any observations made in this order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- recovered during search and seizure proceedings on October 17, 2023, should be treated as a voluntary payment or a pre-deposit for filing an appeal, considering the dispute raised by the petitioner and the respondents' stance. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner contended that the Rs. 75,00,000/- was recovered under duress during search and seizure and should not be treated as a voluntary payment. The petitioner sought to challenge the subsequent order on merits. Revenue's Contention: The learned advocate for the CGST authorities disputed the petitioner's account of the recovery, indicating a difference in understanding of the events. The respondents asserted their actions were lawful.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
petition by passing the following order:
The amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- paid by the petitioner during the search and seizure which took place on 17th October 2023 at about 10.00 P.M., which is disputed by Mr. Bhanja, learned advocate appearing for the CGST authorities, shall, for all practical purposes, be treated as a pre-deposit for the petitioner to prefer an appeal from the order passed under Section 74 of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2017-18 to 2022-23, provided such appeal is filed within two weeks from date.
It is made clear that in the event, the statutory appeal is not filed, the aforesaid direction shall not enure to the benefit of the petitioner and the writ petition shall stand automatically dismissed.
2
It is also made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and considering the availability of the alternative remedy, and to iron out the differences on the issue of the alleged recovery during the search and seizure, the above procedure has been adopted so as to permit the petitioner to challenge the impugned order on merits before the appellate authority.
Since, I have not gone into the merits of the case, the appellate authority shall decide the matter being uninfluenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
With the above observations and direction, the writ petition along with its connected applications being CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 accordingly stands disposed of.
All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.