TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the principle of natural justice. It is quite obvious and barely there arises any need for the Court to elaborate that once a show cause notice for the refund claim of ₹ 36,85,893/- is issued at the best, the rejection that can be made is for the amount for which the show cause notice is issued and surely not for any higher amount than specified in show cause notice. It is quite obvious that is a gross and apparent mistake that the authority concerned has travelled beyond the scope of show cause notice. That itself is the valid and opt ground for the Court to interfere - Non availment of the opportunity of hearing, more particularly when it affects adversely the petitioner and exceeds the scope of show cause notice, the order dese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd of unutilised input tax credit was preferred by the petitioner on 27.01.2021 aggregating to ₹ 2,84,04,175/- for the period February, 2019 to March, 2020. This was assigned to the Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax Circle- 2, Ahmedabad. The petitioner also substantiated its claim with necessary documents as sought by the authority, the physical copies of Foreign Inward Remittance Certificates ( the FIRCs hereinafter) for the payments received during the period of refund application also have been tendered. This has been done in satisfaction of the authorities in terms of Rule 89(4)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Rules, 2017 ( the CGST Rules, 2017 hereinafter). The FIRCs for the current period and FIRCs for invoices pertaining to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and sought rectification of the same. However, no response has been received from the respondent. 4.4 Therefore,on 12.08.2021 considering the stringent provisions of limitation for filing an appeal as provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 and not being conversant with the decision of the Apex Court and the High Court, the petitioner preferred the appeal in Form GST APL 01 before the Appellate Authority challenging the order, however, the appeal has not been listed for hearing. The petitioner, therefore, is aggrieved and approached this Court. 5. This Court while issuing the notice to the respondent on 08.12.2021 passed the following order: 1.Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fresh adjudication of the show cause notice dated March 16/18, 2021 at Annexure B hereto which is limited to the balance amount of ₹ 36,85,893/-. D. Ex parte ad interim relief in terms of prayer C hereinabove be granted. E. Such other and further reliefs as deemed just and expedient be granted. 2. The main grievance on the part of the petitioner is that the show cause notice had been issued in relation to the disputed refund claim of ₹ 36,85,890/-. The proposed rejection of refund application was to that extent. However, the total refund claim of ₹ 2,84,04,175/- crores. The refund claim of the petitioner, rejected in the month of January, 2021, has not been proceeded with, as the order passed by the authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner and that too, rejecting the total amount of refund claim without restricting to the amount of show cause notice. 10. Thus, on due consideration of the oral submissions, material placed on the record and also bearing in mind the settled position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the order impugned needs to be quashed and the matter should be remitted by the officer concerned from the stage where he has not followed the principle of natural justice for the following reasons. 11. It is quite obvious and barely there arises any need for the Court to elaborate that once a show cause notice for the refund claim of ₹ 36,85,893/- is issued at the best, the rejection that can be made is for the amount for which the show c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
