Case Law Details
Eunike General Trading Vs Commissioner of Goods And Service Tax (High court of Delhi)
Section 73 and 74 of the Act also provide for recovery of refund where the same has been erroneously granted. Clearly, if the respondents are of the view that the refund has been erroneously granted, they would be required to take appropriate action under Section 73 or 74 of the Act. Recourse to Section 107(2) may be necessary only if the Adjudicating Authority has adjudicated any contentious issue, which in the opinion of the Commissioner requires to be reviewed.
Insofar as the blocking of the bank account is concerned, the said action is taken under Section 83 of the Act. By virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 83 of the Act, the said order of attachment ceases to be operative on expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order. The respondents are required to adhere to the said discipline.
Considering the averment that the auditor has already reviewed the petitioner’s case and has directed refund for the sum of ₹38,786/-, we consider it apposite to direct the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s request for lifting of the block placed on the petitioner’s bank account and continue the same only if it is satisfied that the conditions as specified in Section 83 of the Act continue to exist.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
