2020 (12) TMI 407 - HC - GST

Principles of Natural Justice - petitioner requested for additional fifteen days time to file a detailed reply and also for personal hearing - SCN issued on the ground that the second refund application cannot be filed in view of the fact that a similar application filed in the month of September 2018 has been sanctioned - HELD THAT - The petitioner who has not participated in the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice cannot canvass such grounds. But, the learned Counsel is unable to controvert that the impugned order is without considering the petitioner s request for grant of additional time. Also for the reasons that the learned Counsel for the parties is unable to point out prohibition in law against grant of extension of time by the third respondent and to serve the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceeding to the third respondent for a considered decision with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file its detailed objections and to avail personal hearing. Petition allowed in part.

Summary

Issues: Impugning order dated 19.03.2020; Show cause notice deficiencies; Grant of additional time for reply; Second refund application rejection; Setting aside impugned order; Restoration of proceeding for detailed objections and personal hearing.

The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order dated 19.03.2020 and seeking other reliefs. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India due to two main reasons. Firstly, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for a personal hearing scheduled on 17.03.2020, but the petitioner requested additional time to file a detailed reply, which was not considered before the impugned order was passed. Secondly, the show cause notice was based on the rejection of a second refund application, which the authorities did not clearly specify as a valid reason for rejection. The petitioner argued that the law does not prohibit filing a second application, and the notice lacked essential details for a proper rejection. The respondent contended that the deficiencies in the show cause notice are subject to adjudication, but since the petitioner did not participate in the proceeding, these grounds cannot be raised. However, it was acknowledged that the impugned order was issued without considering the petitioner's request for additional time.

The Court, after considering the arguments, found that there was no legal prohibition against granting an extension of time by the third respondent. In the interest of justice, the Court decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceeding to the third respondent. This would provide the petitioner with a reasonable opportunity to submit detailed objections and have a personal hearing. The petitioner agreed to file detailed objections by a specified date and requested a personal hearing, which was scheduled accordingly. As a result, the writ petition was partially allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the proceeding was restored to the third respondent for further adjudication, allowing the petitioner to submit detailed objections by a specified date and have a personal hearing as deemed fit by the third respondent.