JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by petitioner-company with a prayer to grant following reliefs :- “It is therefore humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction:- a) The respondents may be directed to invoke section 73 for adjudication of alleged short paid tax by issuing show cause notice to the petitioner. b) Respondents may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.40 Lakhs recovered from Petitioner (by way of form GST DRC-03 dated 16.12.2022) along with interest. c) It may be declared that actions and communications issued by respondents in relation to supply of works contract service by the petitioner to AVVNL for the period May 2018 to September 2021, insofar as holding the petitioner liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,51,49,553/-are illegal and without jurisdiction. d) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner.” 2. The petitioner is a registered company in the State of Gujarat and is also duly registered under the GST Regime. As per the petitioner, it is engaged in providing complete turnkey solutions from concept to commissioning and maintenance of the electrification works and other civil works to its customers. The petitioner-company was awarded contract by the AVVNL, Ajmer to undertake some electrification works in Dungarpur District in the year 2014. 3. On 10.11.2022, the petitioner-company was in receipt of summons issued by respondent No.3 intimating it that an inquiry has been initiated against it in respect of short payment of GST on taxable supply to AVVNL asking the petitioner company to furnish details. As per the petitioner, it had submitted its response, pursuant to the summons dated 10.11.2022 along with documents containing sales reconciliation summary etc. by way of a letter dated 02.12.2022. It is also claimed that the authorized person of the petitioner-company has expressed its intention to contest the proceedings claiming that the issue involving interpretation of law. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner-company was in receipt of another communication dated 12/13.12.2022, whereby the respondents had intimated that an inquiry has been initiated against it for short payment of GST and the petitioner-company is liable to pay GST of Rs.5,51,49,553/-for the period May 2018 to September 2021. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner-company was in receipt of another communication dated 12/13.12.2022, whereby the respondents had intimated that an inquiry has been initiated against it for short payment of GST and the petitioner-company is liable to pay GST of Rs.5,51,49,553/-for the period May 2018 to September 2021. As per the petitioner, in response to the communication dated 12/13.12.2022, it immediately responded on 13.12.2022 itself claiming that the issue involved was purely that of interpretation and also that the principle was decided in favour of the petitioner-company in the pre-GST Regime. The petitioner has also raised objection regarding computation of differential amount. 5. It is the case of the petitioner-company that despite objection being submitted by it, the respondents have forced it to deposit an amount of Rs.40,00,000/-by way of filing form GST DRC-3 under Section 73(5) on 16.12.2022 and are issuing summons from time to time intimating the petitioner that it is liable to pay GST of Rs.5,51,49,553/-in respect of short payment of GST on taxable supply to AVVNL for the period May, 2018 to September, 2021. 6. It is the main contention of the petitioner that without adjudication of the question in accordance with law, the respondents cannot force the petitioner to pay the amount as demanded by them. It is contended that it is mandatory for the respondents to adjudicate under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and thereafter it can proceed further as per the result of the adjudication but prior to that, the respondents cannot force the petitioner to pay the amount as adjudicated by them illegally. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents authorities are acting in illegal manner as without adjudication under Section 73 of the CGST Act, it cannot force the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.5,51,49,553/-claiming it as short payment of GST on taxable supply to AVVNL. 8. It is submitted that when the petitioner-company is agitating that it is entitled to pay GST at the rate of 12% only, which it has already paid, the respondents cannot pressurize the petitioner-company to deposit a huge amount of more than Rs.5 crore without there being any adjudication under Section 73 of the CGST Act. 9. 8. It is submitted that when the petitioner-company is agitating that it is entitled to pay GST at the rate of 12% only, which it has already paid, the respondents cannot pressurize the petitioner-company to deposit a huge amount of more than Rs.5 crore without there being any adjudication under Section 73 of the CGST Act. 9. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned notice demanding short payment of GST to the tune of Rs.5,51,49,553/-may kindly be set aside and the amount of Rs.40,00,000/-deposited by the petitioner by way of form GST DRC-03 dated 16.12.2022 may kindly be ordered to be refunded along with interest. 10. Reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition is raised claiming that the petitioner-company has filed this writ petition at a very premature stage and on merits, it is claimed that there is no illegality in issuance of impugned notices to the petitioner-company and the same are in accordance with law. 11. It is averred in the reply that the petitioner-company was initially paying taxes from April, 2018 to February, 2020 at the rate of 18%, however, further as per the notification dated 21.09.2017 in GST Regime, it has changed its tax rate from 18% to 12%, though the supply to the AVVNL is attracting GST at the rate of 18% instead of 12%. 12. In para 17 of the reply, it is averred that investigation in the matter is under progress and show cause notice will be issued to the petitioner-company after completion of investigation. 13. From the tenor of the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it appears that still the inquiry is going on and final adjudication as per Section 73 of the CGST Act has not been done till date. 14. Though the petitioner-company is claiming that it was forced to pay the amount of Rs.40,00,000/-vide GST DRC-03 dated 16.12.2022, but the respondents are claiming that they have not forced the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.40,00,000/-, rather the petitioner-company has deposited the amount voluntarily under Section 73(5) of the CGST Act through DRC-03 dated 16.12.2022 and further voluntarily paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- vide GST DRC-03 dated 03.04.2023. 15. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed as the same is prematurely filed. It is also contended that the impugned notices issued by the respondent-authorities are perfectly in accordance with law and there is no illegality in issuing the same. At the same time, learned counsel for the respondents has frankly admitted that the adjudication regarding the liability of the petitioner-company for short payment of GST on taxable supply to AVVNL for the period May, 2018 to September, 2021 is still to be finalized as per the provisions of Section 73 of the CGST Act. 16. In view of the aforesaid submissions, we dispose of this writ petition while directing the respondents not to insist the petitioner-company to pay the amount of Rs.5,51,49,553/-, as indicated in the impugned notices, till final adjudication is taken place under Section 73 of the CGST Act. It is also directed that the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-deposited by the petitioner-company through forms GST DRC-03 dated 16.12.2022 and 03.04.2023 shall remain subject to the final adjudication of the matter under Section 73 of the CGST Act 2017. 17. Stay petition also stands disposed of. 18. There shall be no order as to costs.