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

List on 17.03.2023

The short issue, that falls for consideration in this appeal was whether the cancellation of the registration granted to the appellants under the provisions of the WBGST Act, 2017 was just and proper and whether the appellate authority was right in upholding the order of cancellation of the registration. The appeal and the writ petition are disposed of and the order passed by the appellate authority and the original authority are set aside and the original authority is directed to restore the appellants’ registration.

This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The application is rejected as premature.

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that before passing the final order, the petitioner should have been heard, in view of Rule 92 (3) of CGST Rules, 2017.

This Court is of the view that there is no liability to interest, the impugned order to the extent to which it levies interest under Section 50(3) of the CGST, on ITC, Education Cess and Higher Education Cess, is not in conformity with law and is set aside.