TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer to process the application of refund as per the provisions of Act/Rules provided the petitioner furnishes the solvent security as per his satisfaction. It appears that the respondent No. 1, who had passed the original order, which came to be set aside by the appellate authority and ordered for refund so made, has been trying to somehow block the refund to be made to the petitioner. Initially, he moved an application under Section 54 (11) of the Act, 2017 which came to be rejected by the authority and direction was given to the petitioner to provide solvent security. Once solvent security was produced by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 again, apparently not willing to refund the amount, has demanded bank guarantee from the petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as per law. 4. The petitioner applied online on 17/5/2022 through GST Common Portal for refund of the amount. The respondent No. 1 referred the matter to his higher authority for withholding the amount of refund under Section 54(11) of the Rajasthan Goods Services Tax Act, 2017 ( the Act, 2017 ). 6. The respondent no. 2 after hearing the parties, passed the order dated 7/12/2022 (Annex. 3) and came to the conclusion that their exists no reasonable and strong ground for withholding the refund and directed the proper officer to process the application of refund as per the provisions of Act/Rules provided the petitioner furnishes solvent security as per his satisfaction. 7. The petitioner submitted the requisite for complying with the directi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as ordered by the appellate authority, has demanded bank guarantee, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside. 11. A reply to the writ petition has been filed inter alia seeking to justify the original order, which came to be set aside by the appellate authority and that in the circumstances of the case the demand of bank guarantee is justified. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned with reference to the order passed by the respondent No. 1 inter alia seeking to safeguard the interest of the State while making refund and it was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the court and he has to produce documents to indicate that he owns some movable/immovable property, which is equivalent to the amount for which the said security is being provided. The solvent security is that of a person who is entitled to/recipient of the amount. Whereas, the bank guarantee is a guarantee given by the bank on behalf of the applicant to cover the payment obligation to a third party. As such, it cannot be said that the demand of bank guarantee by respondent No. 1 could be equated with providing solvent security in terms of the order passed under Section 54 (11) of the Act, 2017. 18. In view of the above discussion, the action of respondent No. 1 in seeking bank guarantee from the petitioner is ex facie contrary to the dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
