Page 91 - GSTL_23rd July 2020_Vol 38_Part 4

2020 ] TEAM HR SERVICES PVT. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 457
ticle 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders of attachment, if the
petitioners file objections under sub-rule (5) of Rule 159 of the Central
Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 on or before 18th April, 2019, the com-
petent authority shall consider the same as having been filed within time.
The competent authority shall duly consider all the objections raised by the
petitioners, including the objection with regard to the attachment being
without authority of law in view of the fact no proceedings have been
launched against the petitioners under Section 74 of the Act, and decide
such application as expeditiously as possible and latest by 30th April, 2019.
Needless to state that in case any adverse order is passed against the peti-
tioners, it would be open for the petitioners to challenge the same before
the appropriate forum Direct service is permitted today.
9. Keeping in view the similarity of circumstances as obtained in the
above case, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondent No. 1 to treat the
present writ petition as an objection under Rule 159(5) of the Central Goods and
Services Tax Rules, 2017 and decide the same within three working days.
10. With the aforesaid direction, present writ petition stands disposed
of.
11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order
be also forwarded to the Learned Counsel through e-mail.
_______

2020 (38) G.S.T.L. 457 (Del.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw and Asha Menon, JJ.
TEAM HR SERVICES PVT. LTD.

Versus
UNION OF INDIA
W.P. (C) No. 13114 of 2019 and CM No. 7430 of 2020, decided on 10-6-2020
1
Refund of deposit made pending investigation - Demand for entire
sum of ` 4,66,39,061 set aside by CESTAT on the ground of being barred by
time - Petitioner aggrieved by appropriation of amount of ` 2,38,00,000 already
deposited when demand with respect whereto also set aside - HELD : Demand
cannot be bifurcated as Commissioner as well as CESTAT dealt with entire
demand as one and set aside same - Deposit made under protest and against
anticipated liability - No assessment made and no demand raised at time of
deposit of said amount - Allowing State to retain said amount, also to be in
violation of Section 72 of Contract Act, 1872, as said provision enshrines prin-
ciple of unjust enrichment and restitution - Said order not disclosing any
ground or statutory provision whereunder State are entitled to retain said
amount - No justification for State in retaining said amount. - The respondents as
State can recover and/or retain as tax only such amounts which are assessed and found
due as tax and which assessment has attained finality. The respondents, as State, cannot
retain even a single paise of the assessee, unless has been found due towards tax liability
and which is not the case here. [paras 11, 12]

________________________________________________________________________
1 On appeal from 2018 (13) G.S.T.L. 163 (Tribunal).
GST LAW TIMES  23rd July 2020  91