2021 (4) TMI 1286 - Commissioner - GST

EOU - refund of Input Tax Credit - inward supply utilized for Export of Services without payment of Tax - Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - In the instant case though the message was conveyed to the appellant through GST portal regarding issuance of SCN (RFD-08) and rejection of his refund claim, but the appellant could not view/download the copy of show cause notice (RFD-08) as well as Order-in-Original (RFD-06) through GST portal hence, he could not reply to show cause notice as well as could not attend the personal hearing on the scheduled date and time. There is no doubt that the appellant had not got the opportunity to be heard as well as to defend his case. Therefore in the instant case, it is found that principle of natural justice has not been followed properly. Further, ongoing through the column No. 3 of Order-in-Original dated 10-12-2020 (RFD-06) it is found that the whole amount of refund claim mentioned as inadmissible but in the order portion neither the rejection amount has been mentioned nor any provisions/acts/rules has been mentioned by which refund has been rejected. Order-in-Original is non-speaking, non-reasoned order and proper opportunity to be heard has also not been given as per Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 to the appellant. Therefore, it is not possible at the appellate level to decide the case on merits - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to provide the proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and decide the case afresh with proper reason and details speaking order by following the principle of natural justice. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original rejecting refund claim under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017.
2. Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice and Refund Rejection Order.
3. Grounds of appeal challenging the Refund Rejection Order.
4. Interpretation of the rejection order and legal arguments presented.
5. Lack of mention of legal provisions in the rejection order.
6. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Original rejecting refund claim
The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit engaged in export of software services, filed a refund application of Input Tax Credit for the period April to June 2020. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim citing non-mention of export invoice references on the FIRC and discrepancies in the amount matching. The appellant challenged this decision through an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue 2: Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice and Refund Rejection Order
The appellant raised concerns about not receiving the Show Cause Notice and Refund Rejection Order, leading to an ex parte decision by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant highlighted the lack of information regarding the scheduled Personal Hearing due to non-receipt of the SCN, resulting in procedural irregularities.

Issue 3: Grounds of appeal challenging the Refund Rejection Order
The appellant contested the Refund Rejection Order on various grounds, including the wording of the order implying full approval of the refund claim, lack of legal support in the order, and procedural deficiencies in the adjudication process. The appellant argued that the rejection order was arbitrary and did not comply with legal requirements.

Issue 4: Interpretation of the rejection order and legal arguments presented
The appellant critiqued the rejection order's language, pointing out discrepancies and lack of legal basis. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked clarity and failed to address the specifics of the refund claim, especially regarding the mention of export invoice references and matching amounts.

Issue 5: Lack of mention of legal provisions in the rejection order
The appellant emphasized the absence of specific legal provisions or sections cited in the rejection order, raising concerns about the validity and legal basis of the decision. The appellant contended that the rejection order was vague and did not adhere to the requirements of providing a reasoned decision based on relevant laws.

Issue 6: Compliance with principles of natural justice in the adjudication process
The Commissioner, in the appellate decision, noted procedural lapses in the adjudication process, including the appellant's inability to access crucial documents through the GST portal and the lack of proper communication regarding the show cause notice and personal hearing. The Commissioner highlighted the importance of following the principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

In conclusion, the appellate authority found the Order-in-Original to be non-speaking and non-reasoned, lacking proper adherence to principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned order based on a fair hearing and compliance with legal provisions.

← Previous Next →