AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel for the respondents No. 5, 6 and
7 being the authorities under the GST department and Mr. Girin Pegu, learned counsel for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4 being the authorities under
the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Commerce and Industry Govt. of India.
Issue notice, returnable in 2 (two) weeks. Extra copies be furnished within three days.
The petitioners have assailed the order dated 03.01.2022 of the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Guwahati-1 Division of the
respondent GST, whereby there was a direction to repay the refund of Rs.50,48,483/- along with an interest of 15% per anum which was earlier
refunded to the petitioner assessee under the budgetary scheme. As per the order impugned dated 03.01.2022, the petitioner unit does not qualify to be
an eligible unit as per the definition of eligibility unit contained in the BSS notification.
It is submitted that the issue involved in this petition is same as that of WP(C) 2005/2021 wherein an interim order was passed not to take coercive
action for repayment of the refunded amount till the next returnable date.
We pass a similar restrained order requiring the department not to take coercive action against the petitioner in respect of an amount of
Rs.50,48,483/- till the next returnable date.
Further Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent in the GST has pointed out that in WP(C) 2005/2021 the assessee unit was found to be
eligible unit as per Clause-4.1 of the notification dated 05.10.2017 whereas in the instant case in paragraph-5 of the order impugned dated 03.01.2022
a conclusion was arrived that the petitioner unit does not qualify to be eligible unit as per paragraph2 of the notification dated 05.10.2017.
The objection raised by Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel would be given consideration on the next returnable date.
In the meantime, the affidavit may be filed by the respondent with a copy to the petitioner and if advised, the petitioner may file their reply thereof.
Dr. A. Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that inspite of such objection being raised by the respondent, the factual
matrix in both the writ petitions would be same and therefore, the interest of justice requires that both the writ petitions be taken up together.
Prayer allowed.
List this matter along with WP(C) 2005/2021 after two weeks.