2022-TIOL-1050-HC-DEL-GST
Railsys Engineers Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. CCGST
GST - Petitioner has assailed the Order-in-Appeal, the SCN and the order cancelling the registration of the petitioners.
Held: Having regard to the directions contained in the orders of the Supreme Court [ = 2020-TIOL-77-SC-MISC-LB, 2021-TIOL-122-SC-MISC-LB], it is clear that extension of limitation applied even to the condonable period, and not just to the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107 of the Act - Impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 28.06.2021 is contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court, and therefore, deserves to be set aside - Order-in-Appeal dated 28.06.2021 is set aside and the appeal is restored - Writ petition is disposed of: High Court [para 8, 8.1]
GST - Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act, 2017 - Order to be made available on the common portal - Even a plain reading of the provision does not suggest that the orders need not be signed - At the least, the respondents/revenue should have appended digital signatures on the SCN and the above-mentioned order, as it has grave implications for the assessee: High Court [para 10.2]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1049-HC-DEL-GST
Zuric Traders Vs CC & CE
GST - Petitioner is aggrieved with the communication dated 25.02.2020 addressed by the respondents/revenue to IndusInd Bank requesting to keep the account blocked and to maintain the status-quo till credentials of M/s. Zuric Traders [petitioner] are established and verified - Counsel for respondent Revenue submits that the period spanning between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded and that the department would have the benefit of period prescribed in Section 83 of the 2017 Act i.e., period for which the provisional attachment order is to subsist, which would commence from 01.03.2022. Held: Petitioner's bank account remains blocked since February/March 2020 - Nearly two years and four months have passed since the respondents/revenue took recourse to the impugned action - Scope and effect of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act has been decisively ruled upon by the Supreme Court in the Radha Krishnan case and the Bench is required to follow the same - Argument advanced by Revenue that the period provided in Section 83 of the Act i.e., one year, will expire only on 01.08.2022 is also flawed as the impugned communication is not issued under Section 83 of the 2017 Act; that the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu WP(C.) 3 of 2020 [= 2021-TIOL-122-SC-MISC-LB ], will not extend the time frame provided under Section 83 of the 2017 Act - Impugned communication is quashed and set aside and the subject bank account will be unblocked - Petition is disposed of: High Court [para 14.2, 14.3, 15, 16.1]
- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1048-HC-MUM-GST
Alpha Corporation Vs UoI
GST - Court had directed the respondents to unfreeze the account maintained by the petitioner with Axis Bank, however, the bank did not comply with the same and, therefore, the petitioner vide their letter dated 13.05.2022 threatened contempt action against the bank - On 20.05.2022, the respondent's took away Rs.62,32,400/- from its Axis Bank account by way of RTGS without the consent or instruction of the petitioner. Held : Prima facie , it is not understood as to how the authorities get the power to take away amount from anybody's account without account holder's permission or even after taking away the money, they would not even consider it necessary to inform the account-holder that money from their account has been debited - This is nothing but high handedness and gross abuse of power - Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs.62,32,400/- with the Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court on or before 28.07.2022 failing which this court may issue contempt notice against respondent No. 2 - Officer concerned who instructed the bank to debit the amount of petitioner shall file his personal affidavit explaining therein under what authority of law that he got removed the money from petitioner's bank account or directed the bank to debit the bank account and why did he do it without even informing petitioner even after giving instructions to the bank - If the Bench is not satisfied with the explanation, action would be taken against the officer - Matter listed on 1 st August 2022: High Court [para 4, 5, 7]
- Matter listed: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-1047-HC-PATNA-GST
Sri Krishna Sales Agency Vs State of Bihar
GST - Petitioner is in appeal against order wherein their appeal has been rejected on the ground of same being barred by limitation - The Court, notwithstanding statutory remedy, is not precluded from interfering where, ex facie, it form an opinion that the order is bad in law - The order, ex parte in nature, passed in violation of principles of natural justice, entails civil consequences - Petition disposed of in mutually agreeable terms; ten per cent of total amount, being condition prerequisite for hearing of appeal, already stands deposited, however, if amount is not deposited for whatever reason, same shall be done before the next date; de-freezing/de-attaching of bank account(s) of petitioner, if attached in reference to proceedings, this shall be done immediately - The Assessing Authority shall decide the case on merits expeditiously within a period of two months: HC
- Writ petition disposed of: PATNA HIGH COURT
