TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 1228
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Delhi. 2. Since the communication is brief, for the sake of convenience, the same is extracted hereafter: "To, The Bank Manager, Induslnd Bank, Punjabi Bagh Branch, Ground Floor, UGF, Plot No 29 North West Avenue, Club Rd, Punjabi Bagh, Delhi 110026 Sir /Madam, Subject: Confirmation for GST refunds of Zuric Traders (IEC No. AACFZ5051G)-reg. Please refer to your letter no. 02/2020/Zurich Traders/001dated 17.02.2020 on the above subject. 2. In this regard, it is informed that the issue has been taken up with jurisdictional GST field formation with a request to examine the issue in entirety and report the outcome to this office. In view of the above, it is requeste....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hearing. 5.2. Since the counter-affidavit is not on record, and the petitioner's counsel has pressed the matter, given the leeway granted to the respondents/revenue up until now, we have called upon Mr Prakash to argue the matter and put forth the respondents/revenue's defence in the matter. 6. Mr Prakash has submitted that the impugned action has been taken in the exercise of powers under Section 83 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [hereafter referred to as "the 2017 Act"]. 6.1. It is Mr Prakash's contention that by virtue of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the timeframe prescribed under Section 83 of the 2017 Act stands extended. 6.2. In other words, according to M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., possession and encumbrance on the properties in question. 7.3. Mr Prakash contends that the issue is at large and therefore, the respondents/revenue have a substantial defence to offer, vis-à-vis the relief sought by the petitioner. 8. Dr Avinash Poddar, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, argues to the contrary. According to Dr Poddar, a plain reading of the impugned communication would show that there is no reference to Section 83 of the 2017 Act. 9. Furthermore, Dr Poddar says that the impugned communication was not served on the petitioner. The petitioner obtained knowledge of the same, only when the fact that the petitioner's bank account had been blocked was communicated to him. 9.1. It is Dr Poddar's submiss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mar Export and M/s Sharma Traders. 10.2. It is, therefore, the contention of Mr Prakash that their investigations have shown that foreign currency remittances have not been received against exports made by the petitioner vis-à-vis which IGST refund was credited to the account of the petitioner. 10.3. It is, thus, contended that the respondents/revenue have to make the recovery of the IGST refund availed by the petitioner, given the aforesaid circumstances. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the impugned communication would have to be set aside for the following reasons: (i) First and foremost, the impugned communication does not advert to Section 83 of the 2017 Act, as would be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions, the impugned order was issued without jurisdictional facts being present. [See Radha Krishnan case] (vi) Lastly, the argument advanced by the petitioner that the inward suppliers of the petitioner had been investigated (an aspect that we have referred to hereinabove) and that it has been revealed that foreign remittances against the exports made by the petitioner have not been received, is a facet which, apparently, has never been put to the petitioner. There is nothing placed on record to show that this aspect was put to the petitioner, despite the petitioner making several representations. (See communications dated 06.10.2021, 14.10.2021 and 25.11.2021 addressed by the petitioner to the respondents/revenue.) 12. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order passed under Section 5(1) of the 2002 Act will get prolonged because of the order dated 10.01.2022, passed by the Supreme Court in Suo motu WP(C.) no. 3/2020. In this context it may be useful to bear in mind that Section 83 of CGST Act, 2017 provides a timeframe i.e., statutory space for enabling investigation, to protect the interest of the revenue and not a period of limitation. 14.2. Besides this, the scope and effect of the provisions of Section 83 of the Act has been decisively ruled upon by the Supreme Court in the Radha Krishnan case. We are bound by the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in the said case. 14.3. We may note also note that the argument advanced by Mr Prakash that the period provided in Section 83 of....