Voluntary payment covers pre-deposit; bank attachment lifted while limitation challenge awaits Supreme Court verdict

By | December 3, 2025

Voluntary payment covers pre-deposit; bank attachment lifted while limitation challenge awaits Supreme Court verdict

Issue

  1. Pre-Deposit & Attachment: Whether a voluntary deposit made by the assessee can be treated as the mandatory pre-deposit for filing a statutory appeal, thereby warranting the lifting of a bank account attachment.

  2. Limitation Validity: Whether the Notifications extending the limitation period for passing orders under Section 73 (e.g., Notification No. 56/2023-CT) are legally valid.


Facts

  • Writ Action: The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the Show Cause Notice, the subsequent Assessment Order for the period 2018-19, and the order attaching their bank account.

  • Revenue’s Defense: The Department argued that the assessee was aware of the demands but deliberately chose not to challenge them until the recovery proceedings (bank attachment) were initiated.

  • Financial Fact: It was noted on record that the assessee had already voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 3.91 Lakhs during the proceedings.

  • Limitation Challenge: The assessee also challenged the validity of various Central and State Notifications (specifically 56/2023-CT and 09/2023-CT) that extended the time limit for issuing orders for the period 2017-18.


Decision

  • Pre-Deposit Adjusted: The High Court observed that the voluntary deposit of Rs. 3.91 Lakhs was more than the mandatory pre-deposit required (10% of the disputed tax) to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

  • Remedy Granted: The assessee was permitted to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority without the need for any further pre-deposit.

  • Attachment Lifted: Subject to filing the appeal, the impugned assessment order was stayed, and the Court ordered the provisional attachment of the bank account to be set aside.

  • Limitation Ruling: Regarding the challenge to the limitation extension notifications, the Court noted that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court in HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV. The final outcome in this case is effectively stayed and subject to the Supreme Court’s decision.


Key Takeaways

Voluntary Payments Count: Amounts paid voluntarily during investigation or adjudication (often via DRC-03) can be successfully adjusted against the mandatory pre-deposit required for appeals, saving cash flow.

Attachment is a Last Resort: Courts are inclined to lift bank attachments if the assessee shows willingness to pursue statutory appellate remedies and has secured the Revenue’s interest through sufficient deposits.

Section 168A Status: Challenges to the limitation extension notifications continue to be tagged with the pending Supreme Court case, meaning no finality on that specific legal point yet.

Would you like me to draft a letter to the Bank Manager enclosing this order to expedite the lifting of the lien on the account?

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vidyarthi Dresses
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh
Piyush Agrawal, J.
WRIT TAX No. 4971 of 2025
NOVEMBER  17, 2025
Utkarsh Malviya for the Petitioner. B.K. Pandey, Ld. ACSC for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard Shri Utkarsh Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Pandey, learned ACSC for the State – respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 30.9.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as the impugned order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the respondent no.3.
3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided without exchange of affidavits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the business premises of the petitioner was surveyed on 30.4.2019 and on the basis of the said survey, proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that at the time of survey, without there being any actual counting, the allegation of excess stock was made. He further submits that the authorities below ought to have proceeded under sections 73/74 of the GST Act and therefore, the instant proceedings are bad in law and liable to be set aside. He further submits that the issue in hand is squarely covered by the judgement of this Court in Vijay Trading Company v. Additional Commissioner (Allahabad)/[Writ Tax No. 1278/2024, decided on 20.08.2024], which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Additional Commissioner Grade-2 v. Vijay Trading Company (SC)/[Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 5881/2025, decided on 04.04.2025]. He further submits that the aforesaid judgement has been followed by this Court in State of U.P. v. Additional Commissioner [Writ Tax No. 1116 of 2023, dated 12-5-2025]. He further places reliance on another judgement of this Court in PP Polyplast (P.) Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner Grade 2  (Allahabad)/[Writ Tax No.1183/2024, decided on 30.07.2024], which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in judgement of the Apex Court in Additional Commissioner Grade 2, (Appeal) v. PP Polyplast (P.) Ltd.  (SC)/[Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 5880/2025, decided on 15.04.2025].
5. Per contra, learned ACSC could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the Court has perused the record.
7. Admittedly, the business premises of the petitioner was surveyed, in which certain discrepancies were alleged to have been found and on the basis of the same, proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act were initiated against the petitioner.
8. Section 35 of the GST Act clearly provides that every registered persons are required to keep and maintain at the principal place of business true and correct account of things as specified in clauses (a) to (f). Sub-section (6) of section 35 of the GST Act contemplates that if the registered dealer fails to account for the goods in accordance with the provision of sub-section (1), the Proper Officer shall determine the amount of tax payable on such goods that are not accounted for by such person and the provision of sections 73/74 of the GST Act, as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis apply for determination of such tax.
9. The GST Act is a complete Code in itself. A specific provision has been contemplated that if the goods are not recorded in the books of account, then the Proper Officer shall proceed as per the provision of Sections 73/74 of the GST Act. Once the Act specifically contemplates that action to be taken, then the provision of section 130 of the GST Act cannot be pressed into service.
10. The issue in hand is not res integra.
11. This Court in Vijay Trading Company (supra) has categorically held that the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service in case excess stock is found at the time of survey. The said judgement of this Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 5881/2025 (Additional Commissioner, Grade – 2 & Another v. M/s Vijay Trading Company) vide judgement and order dated 04.04.2025. Further, in PP Polyplast Private Limited (supra), the Apex Court has held that the law is clear on the subject that the proceedings under section 130 of the GST Act cannot be put to service if excess stock is found at the time of survey.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The same are hereby quashed.
13. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
14. Any amount deposited in pursuance of the impugned orders shall be refunded to the petitioner within a month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Category: GST

About CA Satbir Singh

Chartered Accountant having 12+ years of Experience in Taxation , Finance and GST related matters and can be reached at Email : Taxheal@gmail.com