9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain with Mr. Jay Upadhyay And Mr. Sorabh Jain ORDER This petition is directed against alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not finalizing petitioner's claim for refund. The petitioner runs a manufacturing unit for manufacture of electrical wires and allied products. It is involved in the business of export. The petitioner's case is that while exporting the goods out of India various export invoices, shipping bills and bills of lading were generated by shipping line, details of which have been given in paragraph 3(f) of the petition. As Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the CGST Act') read with Section 16 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged to have been generated in a transaction with a nonexistent company. As a consequence, show cause notice under Section 74 of the CGST Act has also been issued against the petitioner and proceedings have remained pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the provisions contained under Section 54 of the CGST Act and the provisions contained in Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, submitted that the application for refund cannot be kept pending indefinitely. The provision of law mandate decision of refund applications within stipulated period. He would further submit that as no deficiency was pointed out, the refund application ought to have been decided in favour of the petitioner within the time stipulated under the law. His f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fy by stating why they have not taken decision in the matter. However, there is no order passed by the competent authority on petitioner's application for refund. The refund application, therefore, is required to be decided and cannot be kept pending indefinitely on the ground of pendency of certain proceedings. The effect of pendency of proceedings could be a matter of consideration while exercising discretion in deciding the claim for refund. We find that in the present case, the proceedings were initiated in the year 2020 and 2022. If the statement at the Bar made by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted, the second show cause notice dated 11.03.2022 has been brought to its logical conclusion. As far as the first show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
