TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reasons as to why refund sought by the petitioner was neither admissible nor payable. Mr Jain is right that the only ground given was that the supplier of the petitioner was reported as risky , which, to our minds, does not convey much - Upon a show cause notice being issued by the respondent, which is, dated 22.12.2020, the petitioner filed its reply on 23.12.2020, with due alacrity, even though the timeframe given was 7 days, which was, concededly, less than what is required to be granted under sub-rule 3 of Rule 92. The respondent shall hear the petitioner in support of its refund application, before passing a fresh order with regard to the same - respondent will pass a speaking order and a copy of the same will be furnished to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2. We may note that on that date, when notice was issued by a coordinate bench of this court i.e., 30.09.2021, Mr Aditya Singla, who appears on behalf of respondent, had screen-shared the details available on the respondent s GST portal to demonstrate that the date of hearing had, in fact, been fixed and it was the petitioner who did not appear in support of its refund application on the date and time allocated in that regard. Mr Singla had, thus, conveyed to the court that the date fixed for grant of personal hearing was 29.12.2020, and the time allotted was 03:00 P.M. 2.3. In consonance with the directions issued by the court on that date, a counter-affidavit, as noted above, has been filed on behalf of the respondent, which seeks to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so to sub-rule 3 of Rule 92 of the CGST Rules clearly obliges the respondent to grant a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of hearing before rejecting the application for refund. 4.1. For the sake of convenience, the relevant provision is extracted hereafter: 92. Order sanctioning refund. (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) xxx xxx xxx (3) Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to whether the hearing in the matter was fixed on 29.12.2020. 8.1. Since the respondent was mandatorily required to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before rejecting its application for refund, there has been, as contended by Mr Jain, a breach of the principles of natural justice. 9. Furthermore, according to us, the order of rejection i.e., the impugned order has given no reasons as to why refund sought by the petitioner was neither admissible nor payable. Mr Jain is right that the only ground given was that the supplier of the petitioner was reported as risky , which, to our minds, does not convey much. 9.1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed an application for refund of ₹ 98,54,248/-, which incl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
