9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se the refund for the period, May, 2019 to December, 2019, which, according to the petitioner, is payable in implementation of the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority, Joint Commissioner (Appeals). The petitioner also claims interest on the amount of refund due. 2. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of various types of liquid printing inks. The petitioner was registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter 'the Act') with registration No. 07AAOPB5908Q176. 3. The petitioner claims that during the relevant period (that is, from May, 2019 to December, 2019), the petitioner was carrying on his business from the premises bearing the address A-80 Block, near Kasturi Ram Public School, DSI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner responded to the Show Cause Notices. He claimed that during the relevant period, he was carrying on the business from the premises as declared (A-80 Block, near Kasturi Ram Public School, DSIDC Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi 110040). However, he had subsequently shifted his manufacturing activities to the current location in Haryana (Killa No. 4/24, Village Nathpur, Sonipat, Haryana). 8. The petitioner's explanation was not accepted by respondent No. 3 and he rejected the applications filed in terms of six separate orders in original passed during the period 26.02.2021 to 25.05.2021. The principal reason for rejecting the petitioner's application was that he was not a 'registered person' and therefore, was not entitled to refun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .02.2021, the respondent also issued a Show Cause Notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why its registration not be cancelled. The petitioner responded to the Show Cause Notice by furnishing a reply on 15.02.2021. However, the Superintendent, vide order dated 19.02.2021, cancelled the petitioner's GSTIN registration. 13. The petitioner filed an application for revocation of the cancellation before the Deputy Commissioner, which was also rejected by an order dated 05.04.2021. 14. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed by an order dated 20.10.2021. 15. In terms of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, the orders rejecting petitioner's application for refund have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in time as in terms of the circular dated 03.12.2019, the time for the Department to prefer an appeal has been extended till three months after the date on which the Tribunal is constituted. 22. It is not necessary for this Court to examine the question whether appeals if and when preferred would be within time. Suffice it to state that the respondent has not secured any order which would, in any manner, stay the operation of the appellate orders passed by the Appellate Authority. 23. Clearly, it is not open for the respondents to ignore the orders passed by the Appellate Authority merely on the ground that it has decided to appeal those orders. It would be debilitating to the rule of law, if the respondents are permitted to withhold imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
