JUDGMENT

Ms. Ritu Bahri, J.

The petitioner-assesee has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for issuance of direction to respondent No. 1 to refund a sum of Rs.1,99,90,000/- along with interest. Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of direction to respondent No. 2 to unblock input tax credit amounting to Rs.24,18,516/-.

2. The facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner is engaged in manufacturing of lead and lead related products. Respondent No. 2 blocked input tax credit amounting to Rs,.24,18,516/- lying in electronic ledger of the petitioner, to which he filed his objections. Respondent no. 1 searched premises of the petitioner on 14.01.2021 and Mr. Abhinav Sahaya, director was questioned throughout the search and thereafter, he was forcibly taken to their office where he was kept detained for two days. He was pressurized to deposit the amount and due to this, he deposited Rs.1,99,90,000/-. The petitioner lodged protest regarding the said deposit. Respondent No. 2 thereafter further searched the premises of the petitioner and got deposited another Rs.25 lakhs forcibly from the petitioner.

3. Petitioner was then issued a show cause notice raising demand of Rs.4,04,42,761/-, to which he filed his reply and respondent No. 2 confirmed the demand of Rs.2,34,47,685/-.

4. Now the present petition has been filed seeking refund of Rs.1,99,90,000/- along with interest which was recovered forcibly from the petitioner.

5. On 08.02.2023, this Court passed the following order:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as the matter involving respondent no.2 is concerned, the same now stands infructuous as no claim survives whereby after blocking his account, they have unblocked his account after a period of one year and consequential steps have already been taken against the demand raised by the respondent and an alternate remedy has been availed. As far as unblocking of the account, the issue has come to an end.

Now with regard to respondent no.1, the search was conducted on 14.01.2021 in the office of the petitioner and the Director of the petitioner-Company, as alleged by the petitioner, was taken to the office of respondent No.1.

The matter is being adjourned to 14.02.2023, so as to enable the counsel for respondent No.1 to find out after the issuing the summons (Annexure P17), what further steps have been taken till date.

6. On notice of this petition, a by way of affidavit of Sophia Martin Joy, Commissioner, CGST, Faridabad was filed in this Court and in para No. 1, it has been stated that it is wrong to say that Rs.1,99,90,000/- were forcibly got deposited by respondent No. 1. The petitioner voluntarily deposited the impugned amount and the said fact is clear from the FORM GST DRC-03 (P-4) wherein against Sr. No. 3-Cause of payment, the petitioner has stated as 'Voluntary'. It is further denied that Mr. Sahaya, Director of the petitioner-company was forcibly taken to the office of respondent No. 1. The demand of GST of Rs.2,34,47,685/- was confirmed in the Assessment order passed by respondent No. 2. It has been further averred that there are sufficient prima facie evidences collected/resumed by respondent which indicate huge amount of illegal availment of ITC on the basis of invoices received from the units other than those mentioned in the assessment order of respondent No. 2. It has been found that the petitioner took wrong ITC in respect of invoices issued by M/s Grover Metal Industries, M/s Server Metal Industries. The investigation conducted by respondent No. 1 is not in respect of the purchases