High Court of Gujarat
Hirenkumar Valjibhai Sankhalava v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8399 OF 2026
The ruling in brief
Where unregistered coaching institute admitted cash suppression and liability during search and voluntarily paid tax dues post-admission, with no contemporaneous complaint or evidence of coercion, such payment cannot be termed coercive recovery and allegation raised after two years is an afterthought not warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.
Where after search petitioner deposited quantified dues voluntarily via DRC-03, issuance of DRC-04 was only an acknowledgment with no prescribed timeline, and payment with interest and penalty concluded proceedings, so later refund claim and coercion narratives were afterthoughts, making rejection of refund plea and delayed DRC-04 issuance legally justified.
Where unregistered coaching institute deposited tax, interest and penalty voluntarily during search after quantification based on seized evidence of student count and fees, refund claim was rejected since refund arises only if tax was not payable or paid in excess, and no illegality was found in rejection, making cited circular and case laws inapplicable
Provisions considered
Section 67 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 74, read with section 54, of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 142 of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017; Section 54 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Rule 89, read with rule 92, of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017/Gujarat Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017
This summary is for general information and is not legal advice. Read the full decision and the applicable law before relying on it.