M/S Lalkishan Jagnnath Through Its Proprietor Banke Lal Bansal vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the assessment order, which was pending. It was noted that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 25,00,000 during the search operations, and while the State acknowledged the deposit, it cited deficiencies in the petitioner's applications for non-processing. The Court, without delving into the merits of the deposit or the deficiencies, held that once an appeal is pending, and the law does not prohibit it, the petitioner is free to bring the factum of the deposit to the notice of the appellate authority. The Court reasoned that since the deposit was made in the same assessment year and prior to the framing of the assessment, it is a relevant fact for the appellate authority to consider. Therefore, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Lalkishan Jagnnath, engaged in edible oil production, was subjected to search and seizure under Section 67 of the CGST Act on September 8, 2021. Following this, an assessment order was passed on February 23, 2022, directing the petitioner to pay the determined tax liability. The petitioner admits to having filed an appeal against this assessment order, which is currently pending. The core grievance of the petitioner is that a sum of Rs. 25,00,000 deposited during the search operations has neither been acknowledged nor adjusted against the demand raised post-assessment, despite multiple applications filed with the competent authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 made during the search operations, prior to the assessment order, should be acknowledged and adjusted against the tax demand, and if so, what is the legal recourse for the petitioner when the competent authority has not acted upon their applications. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argues that the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 was made at the time of search operations and should be duly acknowledged and adjusted against the demand. They assert that despite filing numerous applications to the competent authority, no decision has been taken, causing prejudice. They rely on the fact that the deposit was made in the same assessment year and prior to the assessment order. Revenue's contention: The State/Revenue acknowledges the deposit of Rs. 25,00,000 but contends that the applications filed by the petitioner had deficiencies, leading to their non-processing. This contention is disputed by the petitioner.