$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010034862026 + W.P.(C) 1485/2026 and CM APPL. 7161/2026 CONNER INSTITUTE OF HEALTH CARE AND RESEARCH CENTER PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Chand & Mr. Keshav Rai, Advs. versus THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CGST & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Monica Benjamin, SSC with Ms. Laiba Arif & Ms. Prerika Narang, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHARAT PARASHAR O R D E R % 21.09.2026 1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs:- 1. “To set aside the inspection proceedings initiated u/s 67 and 70 of the CGST Act, 2017. 2. To refund the tax payment of Rs.1,45,00,000/- obtained forcefully. 3. To return the books of accounts, documents, invoices and agreements etc. seized during the course of inspection.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the proceedings conducted at the premises of the Petitioner on 06.01.2026 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 11:09:21 and 07.01.2026 were not conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the CGST Act and the instructions issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs [‘CBIC’]. 3. It is, inter alia, contended that the requisite procedure relating to the conduct of search was not followed and that independent witnesses/panchas were not present during the proceedings. It is further contended that the Petitioner was compelled to deposit an amount of Rs.1,45,00,000/- during the early hours of 07.01.2026, when the inspection/search proceedings were still continuing. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, such payment cannot be treated as a voluntary payment. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also placed reliance upon the instructions issued by the CBIC relating to deposit of tax during the course of search, inspection or investigation, in support of the submission that tax recovery cannot be effected during the course of search or inspection by resorting to coercive methods. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the allegations made by the Petitioner are not borne out from the contemporaneous record. In particular, learned counsel for the Respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to the Panchnama dated 06.01.2026, which records the presence of two (2) independent panch witnesses, namely, Mr. Rahul Arya and Mr. Sandeep Kumar. 6. It is further submitted on behalf of the Respondents that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the inspection/search are presently pending before the competent authority. It is submitted that the Petitioner has submitted its response to the communication issued in Form GST DRC-01A and is participating in the proceedings before This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 11:09:21 the competent authority. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submits that, as of now, no final order determining any liability against the Petitioner has been passed by the competent authority. It is also pointed out that even a show cause notice has not been issued to the Petitioner. 8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record. 9. The principal grievance of the Petitioner, as noticed hereinabove, relates to the manner in which the inspection/search proceedings were conducted and, in particular, to the alleged absence of independent witnesses and the alleged coercion exercised upon the Petitioner for making payment of Rs.1,45,00,000/-. 10. At this stage, however, this Court finds that the proceedings pursuant to the inspection/search are still pending before the competent authority. The record indicates that no final adjudication order determining the liability of the Petitioner has been passed. In fact, even a show cause notice has not yet been issued to the Petitioner. 11. It is also material to note that the Respondents have relied upon the Panchnama dated 06.01.2026, which, according to them, bears the signatures of two panch witnesses. The said document is therefore at variance with the assertion of the Petitioner that no independent witnesses were present during the proceedings. The rival contentions in this regard involve appreciation of the contemporaneous record and cannot, in the facts of the present case, be conclusively determined in exercise of writ jurisdiction at this stage. 12. Likewise, the allegation of the Petitioner that the payment of Rs.1,45,00,000/- was obtained by force or coercion is a disputed This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 11:09:21 question arising out of the circumstances in which the payment was made. The mere furnishing of Form GST DRC-03, by itself, may not conclusively determine the question whether a payment was voluntary or otherwise; however, the determination of the factual circumstances surrounding such payment would require consideration of the relevant contemporaneous material and the proceedings before the competent authority. 13. The statutory scheme also contemplates proceedings before the competent authority for determination of the liability, including issuance of the appropriate notice and an opportunity to the taxable person to put forth its defence. At the present stage, the adjudicatory process has not culminated in any final determination against the Petitioner. 14. The writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in nature. Ordinarily, where the statutory proceedings are pending and the competent authority has yet to undertake the adjudicatory exercise and determine the liability, this Court would be slow to interdict such proceedings at an interlocutory or nascent stage, particularly where the reliefs sought would require examination of disputed questions of fact. 15. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the present is not an appropriate stage for interference with the proceedings initiated pursuant to the inspection/search. 16. Needless to observe, dismissal of the present Writ Petition at this stage shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the rival contentions of the parties. 17. All such contentions are left open to be urged by the Petitioner before the competent authority, in accordance with law. The This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 11:09:21 competent authority shall consider the same independently and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation contained in the present order. 18. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, no ground for interference by this Court at the present stage is made out. 19. The present Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of. 20. It is clarified that the dismissal of the present Petition shall not preclude the Petitioner from availing of such remedies as may be available to it in law against any subsequent order or adjudication passed by the competent authority. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. BHARAT PARASHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 21, 2026 ng/pal This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/09/2026 at 11:09:21