2026 (4) TMI 985

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that there is a pending investigation at the behest of the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) against the petitioner and a letter is issued on 20th March, 2025 to the effect that no refund in relation to the petitioner should be processed or be allowed. 2. It is undisputed that on the basis of the said communication, the authorities proceeded to reject the application for refund of the said amount and not decided the said application on merit. On the date of admission of the instant writ petition, we invited the attention of Mr. Sunil Mishra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Authorities-Department the aforesaid facts and called upon to produce the relevant documents, particularly, when the letter was issued by the SFIO ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the liability to pay the interest would only reckon when the application for refund is not disposed of within two months and Section 115 of the said Act clearly stipulates the applicability of the provisions contained under Section 56 of the Act by way of reference. 7. At this juncture, we may refer a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in case of State of Jharkhand v. M/s. BLA Infrastructure Private Limited (Diary No. 56452/2025), disposed of on 9th January, 2026, where somewhat identical question arose before the Court in relation to applicability of Section 107(6) and Section 115 of the Jharkhand Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The provision relating to the State of Jharkhand is in pari materia with the provisions contained in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplication for refund cannot be sustained on the parameters of law. Apart from the same, since an investigation was contemplated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) and duly communicated to the authorities that pending such investigations, no disbursement should be made, also gets eliminated by virtue of a subsequent event as Mr. Satya Narayan Pattanaik, learned Central Government Counsel (CGC) representing the SFIO has categorically averred that there is no pending investigation against the petitioner as of now. 12. Since the withholding of the said amount was solely founded upon the ongoing investigation by the SFIO and the moment it has been brought to the notice of this Court that there is no pending investigation, rejec....