HC Directs Refund of Amount Recovered Directly from Bank Account of Petitioner Subject to Final Outcome of Proceedings

Case Details: P. Athimoolam Contractor v. Appellant Authority/Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - [2023] 155 taxmann.com 367 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • C. Saravanan, J.
  • M.R. Jothimanian for the Petitioner.
  • E. Ranganayaki for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the present case, the tax due for the month of September 2019 and October 2019 was belatedly paid by the petitioner along with the returns filed for the month of March in Form GSTR -3B. However, the department passed the demand order and recovered the same amount, pursuant to the impugned order. It filed writ petition against the said recovery.

High Court Held

The Honorable High Court noted that the said order had been passed after notice in DRC-01 was issued but the petitioner failed to respond and thus the aforesaid order came to be passed since petitioner was at fault. However, considering overall facts and circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner appeared to have discharged the tax liability by paying the amount and filing the return in GSTR – 3B for the period March, the amount should not be recovered.

Therefore, the Court held that the impugned order to be set aside and matter was remanded to the department to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law.