A present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 01.12.2020 whereby the GST registration of the petitioner has been cancelled as well as the order dated 30.12.2021 whereby the appeal has been dismissed.

The matter is remitted for fresh consideration by the High Court which is requested to hear the parties and deliver its judgment on the merits after reflecting upon all contentions and the relevant provisions of law.

This Court allows this appeal by directing the first respondent to forthwith release to the appellant the cash seized from the premises, against a receipt to be obtained from him.

The petition is allowed in part, and the third respondent’s Order [Refusal order] dated 15.11.2022 [Annexure-G] is quashed restoring the same for reconsideration subject to the outcome of the proceedings commenced with the Show Cause Notice dated 14.09.2022, but within four weeks therefrom.

This Court directed that the statement of the petitioner or its officer shall be recorded during business hours that is during 09:00 a.m. to 07:00 p.m., shall be videographed during the said proceedings, and the concerned employee / officer of the petitioner company, if accompanied by an advocate would be allowed to remain at a visible but not audible distance

Without going into the merits of the petitioner’s case, this court of the considered opinion that a direction shall be issued to the respondent to afford a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass an Assessment Order afresh in accordance with law on suitable terms.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent on advance notice, submits that he has no objection to the petitioners’ request for videography and the same be granted.

This Court is of the view that from the date of the petitioner filing an application for revocation of its cancellation, that is, 16.10.2020, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for not filing its returns during the period when the registration stood canceled.

Learned senior standing counsel takes notice for the respondents and submits that the second respondent has only intimated the decision of the first respondent/Commissioner, whereby the request of the petitioner for an extension of time to file ITC-01 was rejected as there is no notification issued by Central/State in this regard

The petitioner cannot be denied the refund of accumulated ITC solely on the ground that he had not filed the necessary information regarding the transfer of business and other returns to establish the transfer of stocks and capital goods more so when the petitioner’s claim for inverted tax structure as well as the accumulation of ITC has been verified. The impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s application for refund is also set aside.

The present accused/applicant is admitted to bail.

Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent