Page 34 - GSTL_2nd April 2020_Vol 35_Part 1

xxxii GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 35
petitioner distinguishable on facts and even in that case Court had
directed petitioner to co-operate in enquiry - In view of aforesaid, writ
jurisdiction cannot be exercised to grant stay on summons - Section 70 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Article 226 of Constitution of
India — Ankit Bhutani v. Union of India (All.) ...................... 71
Writ Petition - Maintainability of - Assessee seeking refund of amount
collected as Service Tax without authority of law - Article 265 of
Constitution of India states that ‘no tax shall be levied or collected except
by authority of law’ - In instant case, there are no disputed questions of
fact that need to be gone into for deciding claim for refund - Claim for
refund based on decision of Delhi High Court in Suresh Kumar Bansal’s
case - Since application for refund filed, barely two months after said
decision, it cannot be said that there is any inordinate delay in petitioners
seeking refund of tax paid - Respondent directed to refund amount with
interest - Article 226 Constitution of India — Vasudha Bommireddy v. Assistant
Commr. of S.T., Hyderabad (Telangana) ........................... 52
Zero-rated supply, AAR has jurisdiction to pronounce ruling - See under
ADVANCE RULING AUTHORITY ........................ 40

________

GST LAW TIMES  2nd April 2020  98