9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had filed two refund applications dated 22.08.2019 and 10.09.2019. The said applications came to be rejected vide Refund Sanction / Rejection Order passed by the Second Respondent viz., Deputy Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Tirupur Division, both dated 20.01.2020 pertaining to Acknowledgement No.2010/2019 [Acknowledgement Date: 30.09.2019, Tax Period November, 2017] and Acknowledgement No.2011/2019 [Acknowledgement Date: 30.09.2019, Tax Period February, 2018]. Against the said order of rejection, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority viz., first respondent [Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals)] and the said appeal also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso to Rule 92(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017, even though an officer comes to the conclusion of rejecting the refund claim of an applicant, the same cannot be made without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the said applicant. However, in the instant case, it is an admitted fact that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. 5. I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Senior Panel counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed two refund applications dated 22.08.2019 and 10.09.2019 and the said applications came to be rejected vide Refund Sanction / Rejec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed: Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. 7. From a mere reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear that the no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. However, in the instant case, the same has not been followed which is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the order passed by the first respondent dated 26.07.2022 as well as the Second Respondent dated 20.01.2020. While setting aside the order, this Court remits the matter back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
