Case Law Details
Testbook Edu Solutions Pvt Ltd Vs Senior Intelligence Officer Directorate GST Intelligence Meerut And And Another (Allahabad High Court)
No Coercive Recovery Without Adjudication: Allahabad High Court Grants Relief in GST Rate Dispute During DGGI Investigation
The petitioner is providing online test/examination services. It paid GST @5%. The officers of DGGI were of the opinion that there is a short payment as tax ought to have been paid @18%. During the course of investigation; the petitioner was being coerced to make deposit of the tax. Hence; petition came to be filed.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court disposed off the petition directing no coercive steps for recovery; in absence of any confirmed demand. It recorded the statement made by the Revenue. It directed the petitioner to co-operate with the investigating authorities; directing them to complete recording the statements of directors on the same day.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Sri Sushant, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Below order was passed by this Court on the last date i.e. 24.11.2025:
“1. Heard Sri Bharat Raichandani alongwith Sri Sushant Chand learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Parv Agarwal learned counsel for the revenue.
2. Based on the documents annexed and averments made in the writ petition, it has been stressed that the petitioner and its director are being unduly harassed only to force the petitioner to deposit the amounts more than the tax due.
3. At present, Sri Bharat Raichandani learned counsel for the petitioner assures that the last summons dated 12.11.2025 shall be fully complied. However, the petitioner and its director may not be coerced to deposit any amount, unless specific order is passed by the authority, in accordance with law.
4. While we may not make any observation regarding the prayer made with respect to deposit of tax, at present it does appear that the presence of the petitioner’s director has been called by the revenue authorities for the purpose of production of documents and recording of statement.
5. Sri Parv Agarwal learned counsel for the revenue prays for accommodation to complete instructions.
6. Put up as fresh on 08.12.2025.
7. In the meantime, the petitioner undertakes to cooperate in the proceedings to the extent that the documents called for may be supplied and if the statement of the director or any other official is required to be recorded. If any further compliance of law is to be made by the petitioner or its director etc. (as may have been made by them), the same may be intimated by the learned counsel for the revenue, on the next date.”
3. Today submission has been made at the bar that the documents called for have been made available by the petitioner, to the revenue authorities.
4. Sri Parv Agarwal, learned counsel for the revenue confirms that fact.
5. He however submits that the oral statements of Sri Baswath Agrawal and Sri Mukul, the two Directors of the petitioner’s corporation are also required to be recorded for the purpose of the ongoing investigation.
6. Parties are agreed that Sri Baswath Agarwal may appear before respondent no.1 on 15.12.2025 while Sri Mukul Rastogi may appear on 16.12.2025. Subject to such compliance being made by Sri Baswath Agrawal and Sri Mukul Rastogi, it is expected that their statements would be recorded in one day itself.
7. On query made, Sri Parv Agarwal informs that there is no demand or outstanding has been raised against the petitioner and therefore, no coercive measures are being adopted for recovery.
8. In view of the above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending and the same is accordingly disposed of, on the terms noted above.
Author Bio
