9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the petitioner on 15.03.2018, upon encashment of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner to secure its interest qua the penalty order dated 09.03.2018. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner is an ex-UP dealer. It was transporting certain quantities of 'beedi' from West Bengal to Haryana, using the State of U.P. as a transit State. On 22.02.2018, the aforesaid consignment of goods loaded on the truck bearing registration No. WB 11 B 2531 was detained by respondent no. 3 on the allegation of improper documentation giving rise to further allegation of smuggling of those goods inside the State of U.P. 4. Consequently, the goods were seized on 22.02.2018. That seizure order gave rise to further order under Section 20 of the IGST Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01. Since that compliance of law has not been made, the claim for refund has not been honoured, till date. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 54(1) read with sub-Section 7 and Section 56 of the Act. She has also relied on the provisions of Rule 97- A of the UP GST Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). 10. On the strength of those provisions of law, it has been pointed out, the petitioner was effectively prevented from moving the online application owing to technical glitches that existed on the GSTN portal. Relying on the pleadings made in paragraph no.23 of the writ petition and its lack of denial in the counter affidavit, it has been then submitted, the petitioner had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32,040/-. Therefore, by way of a right, that amount cannot be retained by the State. Only procedural requirements were required to be completed for its refund to be made. 14. As to procedure, Section 54 of the Act required the petitioner to move an application in the prescribed form and manner within two years from the refund being becoming due. By virtue of Section 54(7) of the Act, that claim ought to have been dealt with and disposed of within 60 days of its receipt. It is also not in dispute, by virtue of Section 56, any delay beyond statutory period of 60 days in dealing with the claim for refund, the revenue entailed the interest liability @ 6% from the end of period of 60 days. 15. As to the maintainability of the refund claim made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contrary opinion existing and perhaps none may arise as the language of the statute as it stands admits of no doubt. As to the filing of physical/offline application on 02.04.2019, there is no doubt raised by the revenue. Therefore, that application had been filed within the statutory period of two years from the date when the refund became due i.e., upon the first appeal order dated 09.03.2018 being passed. Therefore, the revenue authorities were obligated in law to deal with that application in terms of Section 54(7) of the Act, within a period of 60 days. Failing that, the revenue further became exposed to discharge interest liability on the delay in making the refund at the statutory rate from the end of 60 days from 02.06.2019. 18. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
