Facts-Petitioner stated that on 05.02.2021, search was conducted under Section 67 and petitioner was forced to deposit a sum of Rs.20 lacs on
the same day. They also deposited an additional amount of Rs.30,70,216/- on 16.02.2021. The respondents did not issue any SCN or order
determining its tax liability. Petitioner made request in writing to the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.50,70,216/- but the same was rejected
by order dated 18.05.2021. Revenue stated that petitioner deposited the amount through DRC-03 and were voluntary payments amounting to
admission. It was denied that the petitioner was forced to deposit the amount of Rs.50.70 lacs.
-Section 74(5) is not a statutory sanction for advance payment-Section 74(5) cannot be considered as a statutory sanction for advance tax
payment, pending final determination because that would be contrary to scheme of assessment as set out under Section 74. Section 74(6) provides
an opportunity for assessee and/or to revenue to ascertain proper amount of tax, interest and penalty and even in cases where there might have
been a shadow of wrong declaration, wrong availment or utilisation of ITC, or short payment of tax, there can be closure of proceedings at that
stage itself on the basis of either 'self-ascertainment' and acceptance of same by revenue or vice-a-versa.
-Deposit of Tax by Taxpayer on two different dates i.e. even after the date of Search did not by itself constitute Self-Assessment but
should contain material on record of being voluntary and revenue having applied its mind to be treated as Self-Assessment- There should
have been a material on record to show that petitioner had in fact, accepted the ascertainment made by it and the revenue had applied its mind
and arrived at the conclusion that 'self-ascertainment' by the assessee was adequate/inadequate. The petitioner on the contrary is shown to have
consistently contested its liability to make payment of the tax. The 'self-ascertainment' which is contemplated under Section 74(5) of the Act, 2017
is in the nature of ' self-assessment' and amounts to a determination by it which is unconditional and not as in the present case when shortly after
depositing the amount Rs.50.70 lacs, the petitioner approached the revenue for refund.
No Crystallised liability on record- Neither any crystalised liability was shown to be existing nor any SCN had been issued either at that time or
even till now and amount of Rs.50.70 lacs was recovered from it during investigation and has been retained by it.
Held-The petitioner shortly after depositing the amount of Rs.50.70 lacs had approached the revenue for refund of the same therefore,
ascertainment as contemplated under Section 74(5) which amounts to an unconditional determination and in the nature of 'self
assessment' is not attracted and hence, the deposit could not be stated to be voluntary deposit by any stretch of imagination,
irrespective of the fact that deposits were made in the form of GST DRC-03.
Cases Referred- M/s Bhumi Associate v. UOI (2021) 46 GSTL 36, Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd.v.UOI, 2009 (234) E.L.T. 234 (P&H), Concepts
Global Impex v. UOI, 2019(365) E.L.T. 32 (P&H), Century Knitters (India) Ltd. v. UOI, 2013 (293) E.L.T. 504 (P&H), William E Connor Associates
& Sourcing Pvt Ltd v. UOI, Diwakar Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of CGST and Others, 2023(98) GST 322, Modern Insecticides Ltd and
Others v. Commissioner, CGST Others