The Court set aside the refund rejection order under GST, observing procedural lapses as no deficiency memo in GST RFD-03 was issued. While acknowledging the petitioner’s failure to respond adequately to the show cause notice, the Court allowed restoration of the refund application subject to payment of costs of Rs. 2,00,000.

The High Court set aside the dismissal of an appeal due to an inadvertent error in pre-deposit compliance. It restored the appeal, directing the appellate authority to adjudicate the matter on merits, as the pre-deposit is later fulfilled.

The Court declined to quash a show cause notice under Rule 142(1A) of the CGST Rules, emphasizing the availability of alternate remedies. It observed that procedural objections could be raised in the response to the notice and directed the petitioner to respond within four weeks, leaving all contentions open for adjudication.

The Petitioner challenges the Order-in-Original (O-I-O) dated 29 August 2024 made by Respondent No. 5 and the Notifications dated 28 December 2023 and 16 January 2024 issued by Respondent No. 3 purporting to extend the limitation for passing a final order in respect of the concerned Financial Year i.e. 2019-2020. The Petitioner has a remedy to appeal the O-I-O, but Mr. Jain submits that no appeal can be filed against the Notifications dated 28 December 2023 and 16 January 2024. Besides, he submits that no IGST on imported goods is payable under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) Act, though it may be payable under the Customs Tariff Act 1975.

The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable immediately at the request and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

Mr. Kar, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned is order dated 27th September, 2024 containing demand as issued under section 129 in Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It was made following detention of the vehicle and after receipt of notice of penalty, on the 8th day. The notice was served on 19th September, 2024. As such, impugned order made on 27th September, 2024 was beyond prescribed time of 7 days from service of the notice as under section 129 (3). He draws attention to communication dated 18th October, 2024 made by revenue on subject of intimation in furtherance of the proceeding, to demonstrate that according to the demand itself, impugned order was passed on 27th September, 2024. He seeks interference for quashing of the demand.

The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the order in Appeal No. 24/CGST/JSR/2023-24 dated 26.02.2024 (Annexure-6), passed by Additional Commissioner (Appeal) and consequential summary of the demand after issue of order by the Appellate Authority dated 26.02.2024 as contained in Form GST APL-04 (Annexure-6/1) issued by Additional Commissioner (Appeal) wherein the appeal preferred by petitioner has been rejected on the ground of being filed after expiry of period of limitation as prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter for short “CGST Act”).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar matters are pending before this Court wherein challenge has been made to Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017 which leaves the fate of a bona fide purchaser having paid his tax in hands of the original supplier who may have defaulted in not paying of the taxes.

The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

Challenge has been raised to the order dated April 16, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Balia for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019, whereby demand has been raised against the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar matters are pending before this Court wherein challenge has been made to Section 16(2)(c) of the GST Act, 2017 which leaves the fate of a bona fide purchaser having paid his tax in hands of the original supplier who may have defaulted in not paying of the taxes.