This Court finds no infirmity in the order dated 21st December 2022 passed by the learned ASJ granting bail to Manish goyal. This court is in agreement with the submissions made on behalf of Manish goyal that non-appearance for investigation on one or two dates cannot be ground for cancellation of bail. Therefore, the order dated 15th September 2023, passed by the Sessions Court cancelling bail on account of non-appearance on one or two dates is harsh and is accordingly set aside.

1. CRL. M.C. 2791/2023 and CRL. M.C. 2792/2023 have been filed on behalf of the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI) seeking setting aside of the common order dated 21st December, 2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, granting anticipatory bail to the accused Chaman Goel and Chirag Goel.

The refund claimed is within the time limit specified by statute that the petitioner is entitled to refund. Therefore, the order impugned is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter re-adjudicate the refund application by taking into account the observations set out in this order. The writ petition is disposed of without any order as to costs.

In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, this court is of the view that interference is warranted in this case because the non availability of documents, for reasons outlined above, impacted two out of the three defects in respect of which an order adverse to the petitioner was issued. Therefore, solely with a view to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to respond to these defects, the impugned order calls for interference. The impugned orders are quashed and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

The primary grievance of the petitioner in respect of the impugned proceedings and notices is that prior to issuance of intimation of tax in FORM GST DRC-01, the respondent authorities failed to verify the returns as contemplated under section 61 of the Act. Moreover, the intimation of tax in FORM GST DRC-01 has been wrongly uploaded in the Online Portal of the petitioner under the heading “Additional Notice and Orders”. Hence, the same cannot be construed as valid service upon the petitioner. Verification under section 61 of the Act is neither a pre-condition nor a sine qua non for initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the Act. The plea of the notices not being uploaded in the correct portal is also without basis. There are no grounds made out to interfere with the impugned orders and the steps taken pursuant thereto.

The petitioners have filed the present petition, praying that respondents be directed to release an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,15,00,000/- resumed/seized by respondent. The petitioners contend that the concerned officers had no power to seize cash under Section 67 of the CGST Act on the ground that the same was not satisfactorily explained. Concededly, the issue is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court in Deepak Khandelwal Proprietor. Accordingly, the present petition is required to be allowed and the respondents are liable to refund the money seized.

The case is of the initial period of the GST regime. There were genuine difficulties faced by the assessees/dealers and even tax experts in understanding the GST regime. The petitioner has committed a bona fide mistake of depositing the KFC in the wrong account along with its GSTR-3B instead of filing a KFC-A return for payment of the KFC. The petitioner has been refunded the said cess by the respondent on direction issued by this Court. However, the fact remains that the State was denied KFC from 1st August 2019 to 04.08.2022. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to refund the interest portion to the petitioner after adjusting interest for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.07.2022

This is an application filed on behalf of respondent seeking condonation of delay in placing, on record, the affidavit, as directed by this court. Accordingly, the delay is condoned. At the request of counsel for the parties, list the matter on 23.11.2023.

This Court is of the considered view that looking at any aspect, it appears that the petitioner had only made genuine transactions and the error had been committed only on the part of the auditor who had filed GSTR-10 returns after knowing about the cancellation of GSTIN registration of the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the GSTIN registration No. is directed to be restored after an application for restoration of GSTIN registration by the petitioner. Accordingly this Writ Petition is disposed of.

The petitioner is a private scheduled bank registered under the Banking Regulation Act. Petitioner has been served with impugned show cause notice in demanding GST on some allegedly taxable services. The petitioner submits that the GST which has been demanded in the show cause notice for the services which are not taxable under the GST regime, and therefore, the demand raised in the show cause notice is wholly illegal and against the provisions of the CGST Act. Since the petitioner has approached this Court only against the show cause notice, this Court is not inclined to interfere this writ petition when the petitioner has opportunity to raise objections on all possible grounds against the demand of GST in the show cause notice before the authority concerned.

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.