1. Petitioner impugns order dated 12.09.2020, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner had been cancelled with retrospective effect from 01.07.2017.

Since in the present cases, both tax and penalty are imposed against the petitioners and admittedly, an adverse decision is contemplated against the petitioners, therefore, under Section 75(4) of the Act of 2017, an opportunity of hearing was mandatorily required to be given by the department to the petitioners and merely marking the same as "NO" in the option cannot entitle the department to pass an order without giving any opportunity or even without waiting for the petitioners to appear on the date fixed. In view thereof, all the writ petitions are allowed on the sole ground of opportunity of hearing and the orders impugned in all four writ petitions are quashed.

The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-

1. Heard Mr Nadkarni who appears with Ms Khadilkar for the Petitioner. Ms Priyanka Kamat, Standing Counsel, appears for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Ms Asha Desai, Senior Standing Counsel, appears for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

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 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.