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.

From a perusal of Sub-section (5) of Section 140 of the CGST Act, it is evident that beyond the period of thirty days, an assessee can claim the transitional credit of input tax within another thirty days only on production of an order passed by the Commissioner. In other words, unless the order is passed by the Commissioner extending the limitation period, an assessee cannot claim the input tax credit in respect of the inward supply taken before 1/07/2017. The appellant filed the application for extending the time of limitation, claiming transitional credit only after five years. The Commissioner, therefore, rightly rejected the application. As the Commissioner did not extend the limitation period, the appellant cannot claim the benefit of transitional credit regarding input tax. The writ appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

This appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The rectification under section 161 of the GST Act is permissible only when there are errors apparent on the face of the record, in a situation where the show cause notice was contested, which is not the case here. When a show cause notice is not contested, the resultant order passed assumes the nature of an agreed order and a rectification application will not lie to correct a factual mistake therein

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by petitioner seeking bail in the event of his arrest. The Honourable Supreme Court held that at the stage of summons the person summoned cannot invoke Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Honourable Supreme Court, the Criminal Petition is disposed off.

It is the case of the petitioner that the notification dated 31.03.2023 extending the time limit specified under Section 73 of the Act by virtue of the powers under Section 168A of the Act is unjustified as extension has to be for special circumstances. Issue Notice to the respondents returnable on 30.11.2023.

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the respondent. This Court feels that the time period of 2 days is not sufficient to make the payment of demanded amount by the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant a period of 3 months time to the petitioner for payment of balance amount demanded by the respondent towards interest.

The writ petition challenges an order in an appeal which was dismissed on the ground of delay. This court set aside the impugned order and direct the assessee to satisfy the conditions mentioned in Notification No. 53/2023 before the time stipulated i.e. 31.01.2024, in which event, the appeal would be taken up and considered on merits.

Issue is related to GST on the amount deposited in Indian currency of the salary component to seconded employees. Further proceedings are stayed in pursuance of the show cause notice

Present writ petition has been filed against the order whereby the authority has cancelled the registration of the petitioner under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction, that the suspension of the registration of petitioner may remain in force for a period of one month, in the first place. In the meanwhile, the respondent may issue a fresh show-cause notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning paragraph No. 4 of a circular dated 01.03.2018, being Circular No. 34/8/2018- GST by which the petitioner is compelled to pay GST in respect of certain services, that are a part and parcel of the service of distribution of electricity, which is exempted from payment of GST. Held that the requirement to collect GST from its consumers and deposit the same with the concerned GST authorities does not arise.

The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order whereby the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017. The impugned order does not set out any reason for cancelling the petitioner’s registration except stating that no reply was received to the SCN. It is the petitioner’s case that it had stopped its business in the year 2019 and applied for the cancellation of GST registration with effect from 28.11.2019. In these circumstances there are no grounds in the impugned order setting out any reason for the cancellation of GST registration with retrospective date, that is, 01.07.2017. This court direct that the cancellation of the petitioner’s GST shall take effect from 28.11.2019 and not from 01.07.2017.