A search was conducted at the premises of the petitioner on 16.02.2022. The petitioner claims that the search was conducted in a high-handed manner and during the search operations, the petitioner was forced to make a deposit of Rs.1,15,00,000/- under threat and coercion

Hon`ble High Court considers it apposite to dispose of this petition by directing that if the petitioner furnishes the requisite documents within a period of a further four weeks from today, the refund of IGST will be processed.

The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned SCN and clarified that the respondents are not precluded from issuing an appropriate SCN, setting out the reasons for proposing any adverse action against the petitioner. The order suspending the petitioner’s GST registration also stands quashed.

The bail application is allowed.

The petitioner, who was expecting immediate release of its claim felt aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents and, as such, filed the instant petition seeking, inter alia, a direction to the respondents to disburse the amount of Budgetary Support already sanctioned by respondent No. 5 in its favour with interest in a time bound manner.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order MOV-09 dated 16.1.2023 is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No. 2 to pass fresh order within a period of two weeks from today treating the petitioner to be eligible to the benefit of Section 129(1)(a) of the Act.

In the instant case, it relates to recovery of GST. Subsection 5 of Section 159 clearly gives adequate power to the petitioner to file an objection for releasing the bank account or, in the instant case cash-credit facility. In view of such circumstances, when there is efficacious relief in the statute itself, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should adopt such efficacious relief.

Accused petitioners shall be released on bail

No coercive steps will be taken for recovery of the amount demanded as per the show cause notice dated 19.05.2023 and 50% of the attached amount should be deferred so that the petitioner-company can carry out its day-to-day working.

The petitioner has challenged the validity of the Audit Observations as well as the Audit Report passed by the respondent and the Show Cause Notice issued by the respondent. The petitioner submits that the Show Cause Notice being cryptic has resulted in an ineffective reply and accordingly, the Order of Adjudication passed is vitiated for not having afforded sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The matter is remitted back to the Authority. The petitioner is to make out a reply and the respondent is at liberty to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.

The bail application is allowed.

By the impugned order dated 26.05.2021, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the petitioner’s application for refund of an amount of Rs.13,43,719/- as it was beyond the period of two years as stipulated under Section 54(14) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017