It is erroneous to assume that the application, which is accompanied by the documents as specified under Rule 89(2) of the Rules, is required to be treated as complete only after the taxpayer furnishes the clarification of further documents as may be required by the proper officer and that too from the date such clarification is issued

A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent to dispose of the petitioner`s refund claim application in light of the observations made above and to pay up the amount of refund claim together with statutory interest, within a period of three months from today.

Once the refund application has been processed and or the order passed, which has attained finality, the respondents cannot escape the plain effect of the same. They also cannot escape the liability of interest that arises on noncompliance of the same.

The petitioner is directed to make a fresh application for a refund in terms of Circular No. 125/44/2019-GST. The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

In the present case, since the substratum of the charge in the proceedings under Section 74 of the Act stood wiped out in entirety, order passed with reference to proceedings under Section 130 of the Act, there survived no jurisdictional fact as may have given rise to the adjudication proceedings, on the same facts. The impugned order and the impugned notices issued by the respondent are set aside.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, impugning orders whereby the petitioner’s bank accounts were attached. This court considers it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the concerned bank to not interdict the operation of the petitioner’s bank account on account of any of the orders of provisional attachment.

This petition challenges the provisional attachment of bank accounts. As the legal issues as raised in the petition in the context of Section 83 of the CGST Act are concerned, this court is of the opinion that the petition would require final hearing.

Intention to evade payment of tax’ is an essential ingredient, for initiating proceedings against a person under Section 130 of the CGST Act. In the present case, the petitioner had tried to reuse the e-way bills and the tax invoices, as such the intention to evade the payment of tax is impliedly proved on record. Hence, the order passed by the Proper Officer under Section 129 as well as under Section 130 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with the provisions of IGST Act, 2017 is legal and valid and has been rightly upheld by the appellate authority

The provisions under Sections 129 and 130 are independent provisions and there is no requirement in law that the proceedings under Section 130 should be preceded by the proceedings under section 129.

In the present case, there is no proceeding of scrutiny or appeal pending and there cannot be any revision of the input tax credit since the allegation of excess claim has been admitted and differential amount paid by the assessee.

The writ petition is filed to direct the first respondent to pass a release order in Form GST MOV-05 and return the retained goods.

Merely making the bald statement that the registration was obtained by fraud, willful misstatement or suppression of facts without alluding to any such misstatement or the allegedly suppressed facts, provides no clue to the noticee as to the allegation against him.