In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court refused to entertain the petition as the impugned GST order rejecting the refund claim was passed after considering the reply and the written submissions of the Petitioner. A perusal of the adjudication order would show that there is a detailed adjudication of various factual issues. Read More:India’s ICAI and SEBI Joins to Address Financial Frauds The petitioner, Magicon Impex Pvt. Ltd is engaged in the business of export and import of mobile phones and other similar electronic products. The Petitioner had filed a refund claim some time in 2019 and the same was rejected as being time barred as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act. The Petitioner sought  processing of the refund. Various audit memos were issued against the Petitioner, calling upon it to make payments. The money demanded in the said audit memos was deposited by the Petitioner on 11th January, 2024, however, a revised audit memo was again issued along with various other summons.

The Petitioner was also issued a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice on 1st August, 2024 which was again challenged by the Petitioner. Confused by Complex GST Provisions and Legal Disputes in Real Estate? Get Clarity and Practical Solutions from Industry Experts- Enroll Now In the said writ petition, the court found that the audit memos not only indicated the findings of the auditors, but also called upon the petitioner to pay the tax as determined, along with the interest and penalties as applicable. Further held that “Although, the impugned SCN may be premised on the findings of the audit report, the same is within the statutory framework. Any irregularities in issuing the audit memos do not impinge the validity of the impugned SCN.”

The petitioner had also challenged the audit memos. However, the Court notices that in the recent order of 21st August, 2024 in W.P.(C) 11522/2024 pertaining to the very Show Cause Notice, the Court has disposed of the petition by permitting the Adjudicating Authority to pass the order after considering the reply of the Petitioner. No Central Proceedings Initiated When State Issued Assessment Order: Patna HC Finds No Procedural Error [Read Order] The bench refused to entertain the petition as the impugned order dated 7th January, 2025 was passed after considering the reply and the written submissions of the Petitioner. A perusal of the adjudication order would show that there is a detailed adjudication of various factual issues. The petitioner ought to avail of the appellate remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, per law. Since the petitioner’s Counsel submitted that the Petitioner is not in a financial condition to make the pre-deposit, the division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Rajneesh Kumar Gupta held that “If the appeal is filed within the next 30 days, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.”