Page 21 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] INDEX - 21st May, 2020 xix
Recovery (Contd.)
one of 1952 while the other two enacted in 1993 and 2002 respectively - In
case of conflict between two special Acts where both contain non
obstante clauses, the said clause in the later Act will prevail -
Consequently, even the 5th respondent’s claim for the Income Tax refund
amount credited to assessee’s Bank account with the petitioner-bank
cannot prevail over petitioner’s claim for the same by way of adjustment
to its dues — State Bank of India v. Union of India (Telangana) .............. 359
— of any amount due to Central Government - Income Tax refund Order of
6th respondent-assessee for ` 35,75,95,400 received on 20-5-2019 credited
into the TRA account of assessee in the petitioner-bank at its CCG
Branch, Hyderabad - Section 31B of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and
the Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (later renamed as Recovery of Debts
and Bankruptcy Act, 1993) and Section 26E of Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) as per Section 88 of Finance Act, 1994
give priority to claims of secured creditors like the petitioner-bank over
the dues of the State such as Service Tax dues/Income Tax dues and the
non obstante clause therein overrides the provisions of Finance Act, 1994
like Section 87(b)(i) - Consequently, impugned notice under Section 87 of
Finance Act, 1994 cannot be sustained in law — State Bank of India v. Union of
India (Telangana) .................................... 359
RECOVERY OF DEBTS AND BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1993 :
— Section 31B - See under RECOVERY ....................... 359
RECOVERY OF DEBTS DUE TO BANKS AND THE FINANCIAL
INSTITUTIONS ACT, 1993 :
— Section 31B, scope of - See under RECOVERY .................. 359
Redressal of grievance - High Court cannot disregard statutory period for
redressal of grievance and entertain writ petition as matter of course - See
under WRIT JURISDICTION ........................... 305
REFUND/REFUND CLAIM :
— on returned goods - Duty paid goods rejected and returned - Central
Excise duty paid on goods cleared before appointed day but goods
returned by the receiver after appointed day - Appellant failed to
establish identity of goods to the satisfaction of the proper officer,
rejected goods being mentioned in weight as the unit in the copy of
Stock/RG-1 register, while in all the documents, i.e., invoices, transport
note, out gate pass, quantity of rejected goods mentioned in Number -
Further receiver of goods being registered with GSTN, goods returned to
be treated as ‘Deemed Supply’ in their hands in terms of proviso to
Section 142(1) of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and receiver
of goods required to charge GST on the Deemed Supply - Refund not
admissible — In Re : Shri Balaji Industries Products Ltd. (Commr. Appl. - GST - Raj.) .... 373
Registration under GST - Cancellation thereof - Restoration/Re-issuance of
registration certificate - Since appeal against cancellation of registration
cannot be filed on account of limitation, petitioner at liberty to file
representation seeking restoration or reissuance of earlier registration
certificate after rectifying all defects and paying balance tax - Authorities
directed to take a liberal view as petitioner was unwell for long time -
Section 30 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Debabrata Mishra
v. Commissioner of Central Tax and GST (Ori.) ...................... 325

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  21