M/S Aayushman Traders vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aayushman Traders, through its proprietor Smt. Shilpee Agrawal, filed a writ petition before the Chhattisgarh High Court. The petition sought to quash proceedings of inspection and search conducted by Respondent No. 4, the Additional Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Durg. It also prayed for the refund of Rs. 15,09,041/- allegedly recovered under duress via DRC-03, and the return of two post-dated cheques for Rs. 15,09,072/- each, also claimed to have been obtained coercively. The respondents included the State of Chhattisgarh and various GST authorities. The tax period(s) and the specific authority who passed the initial order or action under challenge were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, beyond the involvement of Respondent No. 4 in the inspection and search.

Held

The Court did not decide the merits of the case. The petitioner, M/s Aayushman Traders, through its counsel Mr. Abhishek Singh, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail remedies available under the law. The respondents, represented by Ms. Anuradh Jain, Dy. Govt. Advocate, did not object to this request. Consequently, the Court granted the permission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies. No specific findings were made on the issues of quashing the inspection proceedings or the validity of the recovery and cheques.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings of inspection and search conducted by Respondent No. 4 were liable to be quashed. (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the forced spot recovery of Rs. 15,09,041/- under DRC-03 and the obtaining of two post-dated cheques for Rs. 15,09,072/- each under coercion were valid. (Question of law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the inspection and search proceedings were illegal and that the spot recovery and post-dated cheques were obtained under coercion. The petitioner sought the quashing of these proceedings and the refund/return of the amounts. No specific statutory provisions, circulars, or precedents were mentioned in the provided text for the petitioner's arguments. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents did not raise any objection to the petitioner's request to withdraw the petition. No specific arguments were recorded for the respondents regarding the merits of the case.