Skip to content

Part-46-One Pager Snapshot to the Latest Cases

-Summary SCN in DRC-01 and Summary Order in DRC-07 are invalid in absence of detailed SCN and order respectively
-Revocation of Cancelled Registration and Entitlement to Lodge claim for ITC for the intervening period
-Invoking Provisions of Section 129 and then switching to Section 130 without providing release of goods under Section 129.
-Delay in disbursement of refund
-Opportunity of being heard not provided

S.No

Section

Case Subject

Case

Held

1

Section
73

Summary SCN in
DRC-01 and
Summary Order in
DRC-07 are invalid
in absence of
detailed SCN and
order respectively

Shree Ram
Agrotech v. State
of Jharkhand
[2023] 152
taxmann.com 82
(Jharkhand)

The petitioner contended Respondents had not issued detailed SCN and only summary was issued in DRC-01 and order issued was also
in DRC-07 without detailed order being issued.
The High Court observed that no SCN in terms of Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act, 2017 was served upon the Petitioner and reliance of the
Respondents on the alleged Summary show cause in Form GST DRC-01, dated 20.12.2018, was also of not much avail. Also, it was
observed that when no detailed adjudication order, as required under Section 73 (9) of JGST Act, 2017, had been passed or issued, the
Petitioner was not liable to pay impugned demand only on the basis of the said Form DRC-07. It was also observed that appellate authority
should have decided the case on merit and should have given its finding on the grounds of Appeal that DRC-07 has been issued without
issuing any no show cause notice in terms of Section 73 (1) of the JGST Act, 2017 and also without any adjudication order

2

Section
29 and
Section
30 and
Section
16

Revocation of
Cancelled
Registration and
Entitlement to Lodge
claim for ITC for the
intervening period

R.k. Jewelers v.
Union of India
[2023] 152
taxmann.com 81
(Rajasthan)

The High Court was of the opinion that petitioner firm is covered within the notification dated 31.03.2023 and can move an application
before the competent authority with a prayer for restoration of its GST registration subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the
said notification, therefore writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner-firm to file application for restoration of its GST
registration before the competent authority. It was also made clear that when the competent authority would consider the issue of revocation
of cancellation of petitioner firm GST registration under the notification dated 31.03.2023, the petitioner-firm, shall be entitled to lodge its
claim for availment of Input Tax Credit in respect of the period from the cancellation of the registration till the registration is restored

3

Section
129 and
Section
130

Invoking Provisions
of Section 129 and
then switching to
Section 130 without
providing release of
goods under Section
129.

Sharda Batteries
and Metals v.
Deputy
Commissioner of
State Tax [2023]
152 taxmann.com
80 (Gujarat)

Petitioner contended that exercise of powers under Section 129 and thereafter switching over to Section 130 and passing order thereunder
without availing the petitioner the benefits of release of the goods under Section 129, could be said to be without jurisdiction. It was also
submitted that Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022 and other matters have been entertained by this court involving the same point
and interim relief of release of the goods and conveyance has also been granted on condition.
The High Court directed by way of interim relief that goods of the petitioner as well as vehicle bearing registration No. TS-12-UC 2787, be
released subject to conditions being fulfilled and petition be listed with Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2022

4

Section
54

Delay in
disbursement of
refund

KA Prevulcanised
Latex (P.) Ltd. v.
Government of
Tamil Nadu [2023]
152 taxmann.com
79 (Madras)

The petitioner had applied for refund and had not received refund of 90% of the CGST and IGST. The first respondent had provisionally
sanctioned the refund vide its provisional refund and Final orders too had been passed.
The High Court observed that the respondent had sanctioned refund both by virtue of the provisional refund orders and the final orders
sanctioning the refund and they had not only failed to respond to the request of the petitioner, but even before the Court, they were not able
to give any reason as to why refund was not made despite orders of the first respondent. These amounts are rightfully due to the petitioner.
Therefore, writ petition was allowed and second respondent was directed to refund the amount due to petitioner.

5

Section
74

Opportunity of being
heard not provided

TK Elevator India
(P.) Ltd. v.
Assistant
Commissioner
(GST) [2023] 152
taxmann.com 78
(Delhi)

Notice dated 05.11.2020, pointing out certain discrepancies, was issued under Section 61 of the CGST Act. The petitioner responded to
the said notice on 05.12.2020, setting out the explanation for the alleged discrepancies. The petitioner also prayed that in case the
proceedings initiated pursuant to the notice dated 05.11.2020 were not dropped, the petitioner might be afforded an opportunity of personal
hearing before the final decision was taken. The petitioner's request for personal hearing was rejected and the impugned order was passed
under Section 74 of the CGST Act.
The High Court observed that a plain reading of the order indicated that there was neither any discussion nor any reference to the notice
dated 05.11.2020 or the petitioner's reply to the said notice. The said order is an unreasoned order. The said order was also vitiated as
having been passed without following the principles of natural justice as no opportunity for hearing was afforded to the petitioner. In view
of the above, the petition was allowed and impugned order dated 21.06.2021 was set aside