M/S Ops Udyog vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court directed that the application filed by the petitioner, Annexure P-11, be treated as an application for refund. The competent authority is mandated to decide this refund application in accordance with the law by passing a speaking order within one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of the High Court's order. Regarding the blocking of the petitioner's ITC by the State Tax Officer (respondent No.5), the Court held that the petitioner may pursue an independent remedy for this issue. The petition was disposed of in terms of these directions.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s OPS Udyog, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the respondents' action of allegedly illegally extorting Rs.18,25,000/-. The petitioner contended that this amount was a voluntary deposit made at the time of a search. The respondents, including the Union of India and CGST authorities, entered an appearance. The petitioner had filed an application (Annexure P-11) which was to be treated as an application for refund.
Key Issues
1. Whether the application filed by the petitioner (Annexure P-11) should be treated as an application for refund and decided by the competent authority in accordance with law? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the amount of Rs.18,25,000/- was illegally extorted and sought its refund, with their application being treated as a refund application. Revenue's Contention: The respondents did not explicitly record their arguments on the refund aspect but agreed to the procedure outlined by the court. 2. Whether the petitioner can seek an independent remedy regarding the blocking of their Input Tax Credit (ITC) by the State Tax Officer?
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14992 of 2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 09.08.2021 M/s OPS Udyog, GT Road, Batala ...... Petitioner versus Union of India & ors. . ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL *** Present : Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
1 By this petition the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents what it terms to be illegal extortion of Rs.18,25,000/- whereas as per the orders it was a voluntary deposit made by the petitioner at the time of search. 2 Notice of motion. 3 Mr. Alankrit Bhardwaj, Jr. Standing Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 & 2-UOI-CBEC and Mr. Sourabh Goel, Sr. Standing Counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents-CGST- CBIC. 4 After hearing the learned counsel it has been agreed that the application (Annexure P-11) which was being filed by the petitioner would be treated as an application for refund and the competent authority shall decide the same in accordance with law by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of one month from the date of r
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.