GST - Petitioner cannot be deprived of benefit due to non-constitution of Tribunal - To deposit twenty per cent of remaining amount of tax in dispute whereafter balance amount recovery stayed: HC

GST - Petitioner would not be impeded to operate bank accounts on account of impugned order as provisional attachment order has ceased to be operative by efflux of time: HC

GST - No DRC-04/notice u/s 74(1) issued even after two years of making voluntary payment in form DRC-03 - Amount to be returned along with interest @6%: HC

GST - Petitioner is granted further opportunity to respond to impugned SCN, treating the ground as stated in impugned order as ground for proposing cancellation of their GST registration: HC

CX - There is no averment that requirement of pre-deposit has rendered appellate remedy illusory or that petitioner is anyway impeded from availing the same, petitioner is directed to makes pre-deposit within two weeks: HC

2023-TIOL-628-HC-PATNA-GST

Flipkart India Pvt Ltd Vs Addl. Commissioner of State Tax

GST - Petitioner is desirous of filing an appeal u/s 112 of the Act, 2017 before the Appellate Tribunal - However, due to non-constitution of the Tribunal, the petitioner is deprived of his statutory remedy as well as from availing the benefit of stay of recovery of balance amount of tax in terms of s.112(8) & (9) of the Act, 2017 - Counsel for Respondent acknowledges the fact of non-constitution of Tribunal and refers to Order no. 09/2019-ST dated 11.12.2019 issued for Removal of Difficulties and which provides that the period of limitation for the purpose of preferring an appeal before Tribunal shall start only after the date on which the President of the Tribunal enters office.

Held:  Bench disposes of the petition in the following terms viz. subject to deposit of a sum equal to twenty percent of the remaining amount of tax in dispute, the petitioner must be extended the statutory benefit of stay u/s 112(9) of the Act; that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit due to non-constitution of Tribunal; recovery of balance amount is deemed to be stayed - For balancing the equities, the Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would be required to file his appeal once the Tribunal is constituted and made functional - Petition disposed of: High Court

- Petition disposed of: PATNA HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-627-HC-DEL-GST

Balaji Enterprises Vs Pr. Addl. Director General Directorate General Of GST Intelligence

GST - The petition filed inter alia, impugning an order provisionally attaching the bank accounts of petitioner - Respondents submits that a period of one year has expired since the date of impugned order and in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 83 of CGST Act, the provisional attachment order has ceased to be operative - Court do not consider it apposite to pass any further orders except to direct that petitioner would not be impeded to operate bank accounts on account of impugned order - Petitioner has also filed a list of fifteen bank accounts including bank accounts maintained with IndusInd Bank which were attached by separate orders - Respondent fairly states that although the said bank accounts as set out in Annexure of petition, have been provisionally attached by separate orders, said orders have also ceased to be operative by efflux of time, by virtue of Section 83(2) of CGST Act - Court considers it apposite to direct that concerned banks shall not obstruct operation of bank accounts on account of provisional attachment orders dated 20.04.2022: HC

- Writ petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-626-HC-P&H-GST

Samyak Metals Pvt Ltd Vs UoI

GST - Petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondent to refund the amount which was allegedly illegally recovered from the petitioner vide form GST DRC-03 without issuing any SCN or passing any order u/s 74 of the Act, 2017.

Held:   As per Rule 142(2) of the CGST Rules, when a payment is made in FORM GST DRC-03, the proper officer has to issue acknowledgment accepting the payment made by the said person in FORM GST DRC-04 - In the present case, the said payment was made way back on 26.02.2021 - Till date, neither they have issued FORM GST DRC-04 nor issued any notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act - Respondents have not followed the CBIC instruction No.  01/2022-23  dated 25.05.2022 in which it is clarified that there is no bar on taxpayers for voluntarily making the payments on the basis of ascertainment of their liability; that it is the duty of the officer to inform the taxpayers regarding the provisions of voluntary tax payment through DRC- 03 - However, in the present case, as per these instructions, the petitioner has deposited the amount of Rs.35,73,147/- but the officer has not issued DRC-04 till date - Neither the department has followed the provisions of Rule 142(2) of the CGST Rules nor has issued any notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act - Respondents are, therefore, directed to return the amount in question to the petitioner along with interest @6% p.a from the date of deposit till the payment is made - Amount to be refunded within two weeks - Petition allowed: High Court

- Petition allowed: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Panna Impex Vs CCGST

GST - Cancellation of GST registration - The impugned order indicates that petitioner's registration was cancelled for the reason that it was found to be non-existent - Petitioner's appeal against said order was rejected as being barred by limitation - Although impugned SCN is vague and liable to be set aside; however, petitioner is now aware of reason why its registration was cancelled - Petitioner states that matter be remanded to concerned officer to decide the SCN afresh - The petitioner is granted further opportunity to respond to impugned SCN, treating the ground as stated in impugned order as the ground for proposing cancellation of petitioner's GST registration: HC

- Petition disposed of: DELHI HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-624-HC-DEL-CX

Classic Decorators Vs Commissioner (Appeals-I) Central Excise/GST