This Court is of the considered view that looking at any aspect, it appears that the petitioner had only made genuine transactions and the error had been committed only on the part of the auditor who had filed GSTR-10 returns after knowing about the cancellation of GSTIN registration of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the GSTIN registration No. is directed to be restored after an application for restoration of GSTIN registration by the petitioner. Accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of.

The case is of the initial period of the GST regime. There were genuine difficulties faced by the assessees/dealers and even tax experts in understanding the GST regime. The petitioner has committed a bona fide mistake of depositing the KFC in the wrong account along with its GSTR-3B instead of filing a KFC-A return for payment of the KFC. The petitioner has been refunded the said cess by the respondent on direction issued by this Court. However, the fact remains that the State was denied KFC from 1st August 2019 to 04.08.2022. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to refund the interest portion to the petitioner after adjusting interest for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.07.2022.

The petitioner is a private scheduled bank registered under the Banking Regulation Act. Petitioner has been served with impugned show cause notice in demanding GST on some allegedly taxable services. The petitioner submits that the GST which has been demanded in the show cause notice for the services which are not taxable under the GST regime, and therefore, the demand raised in the show cause notice is wholly illegal and against the provisions of the CGST Act. Since the petitioner has approached this Court only against the show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to interfere this writ petition when the petitioner has opportunity to raise objections on all possible grounds against the demand of GST in the show cause notice before the authority concerned.

This court is of the view that the first respondent is entitled for refund as per the order passed by the second respondent and the first respondent is also entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum of the refund amount for the delay period in terms of Section 56 of the GST Act. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. While dismissing the writ petitions, the petitioner is directed to pass the refund order.

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the rejection of refund on the ground that the petitioner is a SEZ unit and they are not entitled to file any refund application, but only the supplier of service, is entitled to file the refund application. The case of the petitioner is that their unit comes under Special Economic Zone. They had availed the services from the supplier. While availing the services, the supplier levied IGST and the said IGST has been paid by the petitioner to the supplier. The refund filed by the petitioner is allowed.

IDFC First Bank Ltd I General

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK I ???? Board Meeting Outcome Summary

Vedant Fashions Ltd I General

BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD I General

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd I General

Tata Coffee I News Article ????

Tata Cons I Tweet