Held - Respondent No.2 for issuing show cause notice has relied upon six show cause notices and an offence booked by DRI but none of these had attained finality. They were pending at various stages. At the time show cause notice in the case at hand was issued there was every possibility that the show cause notices and the complaint on which Respondent No.2 had relied upon to issue show cause notice could have been discharged or withdrawn again.....

Held - It is clear that once the petitioner's refund claim was rejected on the ground that it was founded on forged ITC, the petitioner would be liable to pay tax, interest and perhaps also penalty, in the event the adjudication order is sustained.

The fact that an appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, which is pending adjudication, persuades us to hold that, at this stage, the impugned show-cause notice is premature. 

.....

Held - It is not in dispute that the matter with regard to the eligibility of MEIS scheme has not attained finality. Hence, respondent No. 4 is not justified in proposing to reject the claim of the petitioner for refund of amount of ₹ 2,74,78,495/- as incomplete and premature as the investigation conducted by respondent No. 4 has not attained finality. Respondent No. 3 ought to have awaited the outcome of the investigation being conducted by.....

Held - In the present case, it is clear that the petitioner's application had been acknowledged by the communication of the Settlement Commission dated 29.08.2018. Although the said communication contemplated an admission hearing on a date to be notified, no such hearing took place. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the proviso to Section 127C (1) would apply and the petitioner's application must be deemed to have been allowed to .....