Page 258 - GSTL_26th March 2020_Vol 34_Part 4

752 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 34
application under Section 11B of Central Excise Act and sanction of same
by adjudicating authority ignoring limitation angle in filing claim, not
sustainable - Assessee’s reliance on another order of Tribunal wherein on
similar facts refund under Rule ibid was allowed, has no relevance as
second order of Tribunal was passed in ignorance of earlier order -
Impugned appellate order disallowing refund, sustainable - Section 11B
of Central Excise Act, 1944 as applicable to Service Tax vide Section 83 of
Finance Act, 1994 — Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of GST & C. Ex.,
Puducherry (Tri. - Chennai) ................................ 232
Registered OIDAR service provider permitted to file Advance Ruling
application manually - See under ADVANCE RULING APPLICATION ... 25
Registration - Cancellation of - Registration cancelled on the ground that no
reply to show cause notice - Reply submitted prior to passing of order as
endorsed by Department - Cancellation order passed without
considering reply set aside - Proceedings restored to stage of issuance of
show cause notice - Section 29 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act,
2017 — Great Sands Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (Bom.) .............. 604
— under CST - Cancellation thereof - Adjudication beyond SCN - Natural
justice violation - Statutory provisions envisage issuance of a reasoned
order for cancellation of registration under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956
that too on specified grounds only - Impugned order cancelling CST
registration of petitioner not detailing any reason whatsoever - Further,
while SCN invoked Section 7(4) ibid, cancellation order has quoted
Section 7(5) ibid which is applicable when dealer himself asks for
cancellation - No such application has been made by petitioner in this
case - Clearly cancellation has been done without application of mind,
thus violating natural justice - Setting aside impugned order, matter
remanded to adjudicating authority for passing order afresh after hearing
petitioner - Section 7 of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - Article 226 of
Constitution of India — Tata Steel BSL Ltd. v. Union of India (Bom.)........... 78
— under Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, scope of cancellation - See under
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE......................... 78
— under GST - Official Liquidator, requirement by - Sales invoices and
returns under GST law in respect of companies under liquidation are
required to be filed by petitioner Official Liquidator - Accordingly, as
suggested by empaneled CA of petitioner, they are required to obtain
GST registration - In view of above, petitioner allowed to get digital
signatures of authorized person as well as mobile phone with numbers in
office’s name strictly for official use - They shall maintain transparency in
keeping digital records - Section 22 of Central Goods and Services Tax
Act, 2017 — OL of Sterling Basic Organics Ltd. v. NA (Guj.) ............... 80
Related services supplied along with principal service of transmission and
distribution of electricity, taxability thereof as bundled services - See
under BUNDLED SERVICE ............................ 385
Relaxation of onerous conditions for grant of bail under GST - See under
BAIL ......................................... 44
Release of goods and vehicle detained in transit due to E-way Bill expiry, tax
and penalty payable - See under DETENTION/SEIZURE ............ 193
— of goods seized under GST - Offer to pay tax vis-à-vis actual payment - It
is not sufficient for consignor to merely make offer to pay tax - Actual
payment of tax is required to be made for getting seized goods released -
Section 129(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226
GST LAW TIMES  26th March 2020  354