2020 (10) TMI 1098 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - appealable order or not - section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - allegation that the impugned order is without the opportunity of being heard as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 92 3 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the proviso contemplates right of hearing and this hearing has not been extended to the petitioner. It is settled law that the procedural safeguards have to be strictly adhered to, and in the absence of specific procedural safeguards, the principles of natural justice will have to be complied with. The provisions of Proviso to Rule 92 3 stipulate a right to be heard; and in the present case, this right, as accepted by the learned Additional Government Advocate, is not extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed on this short ground, and the case remanded for reconsideration. The proceedings are restored for consideration by the fourth respondent - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Compliance with the right to be heard under Rule 92[3] of the CGST Rules, 2017.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the compliance with the right to be heard as per Rule 92[3] of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The petitioner alleged that the impugned order, issued in Form GST-RFD-06, was made without providing the opportunity of being heard as mandated by the proviso to Rule 92[3]. The court acknowledged that the impugned order was appealable under section 107 of the CGST Act, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards and adherence to the principles of natural justice. The proviso to Rule 92[3] explicitly requires that no application for refund should be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, a right that was not extended to the petitioner in this case.

The court highlighted the significance of the right to be heard and the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards. It was established that the petitioner was deprived of this right, leading to the conclusion that the impugned order could not be sustained. As a result, the court ruled that the order must be quashed and the case remanded for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for the fourth respondent to hear the petitioner on the grounds raised in their reply dated 3.5.2020 and make a decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

In the final order, the court quashed the impugned Order dated 30.05.2020 issued in Form GST-RFD-06 and restored the proceedings for consideration by the fourth respondent. The petitioner or their authorized representative was directed to appear before the fourth respondent in person on a specified date, with the option to request a virtual hearing if the fourth respondent had the facilities to conduct such hearings. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard in matters concerning tax refunds under the CGST Act and Rules.