The petitioner challenged the legitimacy of a search conducted under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, asserting that the authorization for the search lacked clarity and precision.
The court acknowledged the absence of specific reasons in the authorization but deemed it not illegal, as the provided reasons were interrelated and satisfied the criteria outlined in Section 67(1)(a) of the CGST Act.
Despite the respondents’ failure to furnish specific reasons in their counter affidavit, the court determined that this omission did not invalidate the search authorization.
Seeking the reversal of ₹18,72,000/- Input Tax Credit (ITC) debited from the Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL), the petitioner found favor with the court. The ruling cited provisions in Section 73(5) of the CGST Act, allowing a taxpayer to voluntarily settle tax payments before the issuance of a show cause notice.
In its directive, the court instructed the respondents to reverse the debited ITC amount and credit it back to the petitioner’s Electronic Credit Ledger, thereby concluding the petition.
Delhi HC – LOVELESH SINGHAL PROP SHIVANI OVERSEAS v. COMMISSIONER, DELHI GOODS AND SERVICES TAX & ORS. [W.P.(C) 16353/2022]