9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ORDER: (PER THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN) Heard Mr. R.N.Hemendranath Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners; Mr. B.Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing respondent No.1; and Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5. 2. In the hearing today, Mr. M.V.D.Praneeth, Deputy Commissioner (Anti-Evasion), Ranga Reddy GST Commissionerate, is also present. 3. Petitioner No.1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of construction, development and operation of IT Parks/ITES Special Economic Zone Parks etc. Petitioners No.2 to 5 are directors of petitioner No.1. 4. An order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount 2. Indian Bank 7170208129 Term Loan 3. Indian Bank 7185513806 Dividend 4. Indian Bank 7007368240 CSR 5. Indian Bank 5021426860 Escrow 6. State Bank of India 30601543805 Current account 7. State Bank of India 35793387835 Escrow Account 8. State Bank of India 38577636606 Term Loan Closed 9. State Bank of India 37298925568 Term Loan 10. State Bank of India 64168693269 Gratuity Account 11. Indusland Bank 200000323075 Current Account 12. Indusland Bank 200999548020 Escrow Account 13. Indusland Bank 250021121995 Escrow Account 14. Kotak Mahindra Bank 0646377597 Collection Account 15. Kotak Mahindra Bank 0552TL010000884 Term Loan 4.1. Immediate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act. He however submits that because of the intervening year ending, some time may be given to the petitioners to work out the aforesaid arrangement. 8. Mr. Dominic Fernandes, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 5 submits that petitioners should cooperate with the investigation. Though respondents had issued summons to the petitioners, on one pretext or the other they did not appear before the summoning authority. Additionally, he submits that the refund order was obtained fraudulently by the petitioners. He also submits that there is no provision of stay of a refund sanction order by the appellate authority. Therefore, question of stay does not arise. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
