9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1167 - HC - GSTRefund claim - rejection of refund in view of Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - A Perusal of the impugned Order indicates that the Respondent No.3 has rejected the application for refund without recording any reasons, though the same is mandatory under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Order passed by the Respondent No.3 is in breach of the said provisions and deserves to be granted and set aside. Impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.3 is quashed and set-aside - Application for refund made by the Petitioner for the period July 2017 to March 2018 for the sum of ₹ 4,33,03,066/- is restored to file before the Respondent No.3 - Application allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of refund application without recording reasons as per Rule 92(3) of Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In the judgment delivered by the High Court of Bombay, the Petitioner had filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Order dated 15th June 2020 passed by Respondent No.3, which rejected the application for refund made by the Petitioner. The main ground of challenge was that the Respondent No.3 failed to record reasons in the Order as required by Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court observed that the impugned Order did not provide any reasons for the rejection, which was deemed mandatory under the said rule. Consequently, the Court held that the Order was in violation of the provisions and needed to be set aside. The Respondent No.3 agreed to pass a fresh Order in compliance with Rule 92(3) after giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard promptly. As a result, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned Order, restoring the refund application to be filed again before Respondent No.3. The Petitioner was directed to appear for a personal hearing on a specified date, and the Respondent No.3 was instructed to pass a fresh Order within three weeks of the hearing, not being influenced by the previous Order, and convey the decision to the Petitioner within a week of passing the new Order, if the refund application was allowed.
|
