1. Heard Mr. Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rishi Kumar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 7, dated 07.01.2019, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 132(1)(B), 132(1)(C) of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 as well as Section 132(1) (B & C) of Haryana Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, registered at Police Station City Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 132(1)(a) (b)(c) and (i) of CGST Act pending in the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

The provisions of Section 171 of the CGST Act, 2017 are not attracted in this case and there is no requirement of any commensurate reduction in the prices of the units in the above project by the Respondent. Applicant No. 1 could have availed the above benefit only if the above project was under execution/implementation before the date of GST implementation viz., 01.07.2017. Hence, the allegations made by the Applicant No. 1 are incorrect and therefore, the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, the proceedings in the present case are hereby dropped

DRAFT REPLY ON SCN ISSUED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF E-INVOICE

The petitioner is on bail in all other three cases registered against him and in the considered opinion of the Court, further custody of the petitioner will not serve any meaningful purpose. In view of the above, without commenting any further on the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/CJM concerned.

As the invoice itself contained the details of the truck and the error committed by the petitioner was of a technical nature only and without any intention to evade tax. Once this fact has been substantiated, there was no requirement to levy penalty under Section 129(3) of the Act. The orders are quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed.

The Petitioner seeks a writ of Mandamus to the Respondents to forthwith process the undisputed IGST refund claims made by the Petitioner and to release the amount of Rs. 5,14,22,051/-in the Petitioner’s bank account. In response, it was submitted that there was an alert reflected in the automated system that processes the claims for such refunds. It was pointed out that the refunds of IGST were not processed due to this alert. This court direct the Respondent to ensure forthwith that the alerts are removed consistent with the statement which was made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel and recorded by us in our order dated 12.12.2023.

When the petitioner applied for refund with regard to unutilized ITC arising from the inverted duty structure, the application was rejected by the impugned deficiency memos. The present writ petitions were filed in the said facts and circumstances. It is necessary for the petitioner to submit all necessary documents to establish that its claim for refund is confined to input goods that are affected by an inverted duty structure. The impugned deficiency memos are quashed. As a corollary, the matter is remanded for re-consideration. It is open to the petitioner to submit any further supporting documents in respect of its refund claim within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The trial Court has not gone into the merits of the case considering that the petitioner has alternate and efficacious remedy of appeal available as provided under Section 107 of the GST Act, the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of. It is made clear that if the petitioner files duly constituted appeal within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, the appellate authority will decide the appeal on its own merits without being influenced from any of the observation made by this Court.

The petition is allowed and the impugned show cause notice, order of cancellation and the order in appeal are accordingly set aside. GST registration of the petitioner is restored, subject to petitioner filing requisite returns upto date, there shall be no liability to pay any penalty or fine for delayed filing. Further this order would not preclude the respondent from initiating any steps in accordance with law, if it is found that the petitioner had violated any provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

This Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 21st December 2022 passed by the learned ASJ granting bail to Manish goyal. This court is in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of Manish goyal that non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates cannot be ground for cancellation of bail. Therefore, the order dated 15th September 2023, passed by the Sessions Court cancelling bail on account of non-appearance on one or two dates is harsh and is accordingly set aside.