Partly allowed

Sai Kripa Confectioneries v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2022WP/5438/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court accepted an apology by the GST Commissioner admitting error in provisional attachments. The court directed Customs Authorities to process the petitioner's refund application within two weeks following the withdrawal of an alert. The petitioner was also directed to ensure input tax credit is unblocked within 24 hours, while clarifying no observation is made on the merits of refund claims

What did the court decide?

Direct Custom Authorities to process refund application within two weeks; direct State GST Commissioner to unblock ITC within 24 hours.

Sai Kripa Confectioneries Vs the Union of India and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

1 905-WP 5438-22.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5438 OF 2022

¶4

Sai Kripa Confectioneries … Petitioner
Vs.

¶5

The Union of India & Ors.… Respondents

¶6

Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Rishabh Jain i/by UBR Legal Advocates
for Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekhar for Respondent Nos.1
to 3, 6 and 7.

¶8

Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha a/w Ms. Ruju Thakkar for Respondent No.8.
Mr. Vinayak Azaad, Commissioner GST, Audit, Guntur present.

¶9

CORAM:K.R. SHRIRAM &
A.S. DOCTOR, JJ.
DATED :07th SEPTEMBER 2022

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1.Mr. Adik tenders an Affidavit of Vinayak Azaad, affirmed on

¶12

7th September 2022, in which Affidavit, said Mr. Vinayak Azaad, who was

¶13

the Commissioner, who had passed the impugned orders, has been

¶14

graceful enough to admit that there was an error in the judgment on his
part and has tendered unconditional apology. We accept the same.

¶15

2.By the said Affidavit, it is also mentioned that two provisional
attachments, both dated 3rd February 2022, have been raised and suitable

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

Mugdha

¶18

2 905-WP 5438-22.doc

¶19

communication has been addressed to Axis Bank and Standard Chartered
Bank on 29th August 2022 and 6th September 2022, respectively.

¶20

3.It is also stated in the said Affidavit of Vinayak Azaad that a
communication has been addressed on 29th August 2022 to the Joint
Commissioner of State GST, Maharashtra to unblock the ITC of
Rs.24,26,371/- of Petitioner. Mrs. Vyas, who is present in Court, expressed
her inability to give answers as the State of Maharashtra is not a party to
this Petition. At the same time, we would have expected the Joint
Commissioner, State GST, Maharashtra to have taken prompt steps upon
receiving letter dated 29th August 2022 to unblock the ITC credit. Mrs.
Vyas is requested to communicate to concerned authority, and non-
availability of this order will not be an excuse, to unblock the ITC credit of
Rs.24,26,371/- within 24 hours from now, i.e., by 15.15 Hr. on 8th
September 2022.

¶21

4.Petitioner has also raised a grievance that the action of
Respondent No.1 has resulted even in the Customs Authorities not
processing Petitioner’s refund application.

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

Mugdha

¶24

3 905-WP 5438-22.doc

¶25

5.In the Affidavit of Mr.N.V. Kulkarni, Principal Commissioner of
Customs (NS-II), affirmed on 25th July 2022, it is stated that the refund
application has not been processed because of an “Alert” inserted in the
system and Respondent No.7 has identified Petitioner as risky exporters on
the basis of extensive data analytics and adverse verification report
received from the CGST field information, i.e., CGST Thane Rural. Since,
CGST Thane Rural has, pursuant to the Affidavit of Vinayak Azaad,
affirmed on 7th September 2022, withdrawn the order of provisional
attachments, etc., certainly the insertion of “Alert” could also be deemed to
be withdrawn. The Customs Authorities are, therefore, directed to process
the refund application of Petitioner within two weeks from today and pass
such orders as they may deem fit in accordance with law. We clarify that
we are not making any observations on the merits of the refund
application.

¶26

6.We have also to note that in Paragraph 5 of the Affidavit of
Vinayak Azaad, affirmed on 7th September 2022, there is an averment that
credible intelligence exist on file and Petitioner has availed illegal and
ineligible input credit from its vendors and one such vendor had also been
arrested by the CGST, Delhi, North Commissionerate.

¶27

3 of 4

¶28

Mugdha

¶29

4 905-WP 5438-22.doc

¶30

7.Mr. Raichandani states that since the copy of the Affidavit has

¶31

been handed over to him in the Court when the matter was called out,
there has been no time to file Affidavit of Petitioner denying these
allegations. At the same time, Mr. Raichandani, on instructions, states that
Petitioner has not availed of any illegal and ineligible input credit from
any vendors. Mr. Raichandani states that the entry from the vendor
Vikram Goel has been reversed by Petitioner at a great loss to Petitioner
under protest and, therefore, it should be a non issue. We clarify that we
are not going into these details. It is open to Respondents to investigate
Petitioner, but certainly that can be done in accordance with law and by
following due process. Arbitrary actions should not be taken and if it is
done, this Court will interfere in such matter.

¶32

8.Petition accordingly disposed. No order as to costs.

¶33

(A.S. DOCTOR, J.)

¶34

( K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶35

Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA M M PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date: 2022.09.08 17:54:05 +0530

¶36

4 of 4

¶37

Mugdha

Sai Kripa Confectioneries v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Kripa Confectioneries v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aspect Contact Centre Software India Private Limited Vs Union of India Thr. Secretary Ministry of Finance Dept. of Revenue and Ors.

Arun Krishnachandra Goswami Vs Union of India and 7 Ors.

Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Co. Op Sugar Factory and Anr. Vs Union of India Thr the Secretary Finance Dept. of Revenue

Rbl Bank Ltd. ( Earlier Known as the Ratnakar Bank Ltd. ) Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mrs. Sangeeta Bharat Jain and Anr. Vs Union Bank of India and Ors.

M/S. Jakraya Sugar Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secret. Ministry of Finance and Anr.