9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 1061 - HC - GSTPrinciples of natural justice (audi alterem partem) - petitioner was never given personal hearing before passing the final order - refund claim in accordance to the provisions of Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and CGST Rules, 2017 - HELD THAT - In the present case, it is not in disputed that the petitioner was granted time to appear before the Competent authority but due to COVID 19 situation in the country, he could not appear and prayed that the petitioner be allowed to attend the personal hearing through Video Conferencing. The respondents have admitted this fact that petitioner did not appear when the final order was passed. As per Rule 92 (3) of CGST Rules, 2017, the provision is very clear that any application for refund shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The rule is mandatory and the department is bound to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing impugned order (P-2 colly). The respondents are justifying their order on the sole ground that the petitioner did not appear. The matter is remanded back to respondent No. 2 to pass fresh order on the refund applications of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in view of Rule 92 (3) of CGST Rules, 2017 - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the quashing of orders concerning refund applications due to the lack of personal hearing before passing the final order, violation of Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, and the respondent's justification for not granting a personal hearing. Quashing of Orders: The petitioner, a company, sought the quashing of orders ZT0605210112439 and ZS0605210137340 regarding refund applications dated 05.03.2021 and 12.03.2021. The petitioner claimed that they were not given a personal hearing before the final order was passed on 08/10.05.2021. Despite requesting a video conferencing hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the respondents proceeded with the final order without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Violation of Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017: The petitioner contended that before passing the final order, they should have been heard as per Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017. The respondents, in their affidavit, stated that the petitioner was granted a personal hearing on 30.04.2021 and 03.05.2021 but did not appear. It was mentioned that the petitioner failed to provide the email addresses of their authorized representatives for sending the hearing link. The Adjudicating Authority processed the refund claim in accordance with Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 and CGST Rules, 2017. Justification for Not Granting Personal Hearing: The Court noted that due to the COVID-19 situation, the petitioner could not physically appear before the Competent authority and requested a video conferencing hearing. The respondents acknowledged that the petitioner did not appear during the final order issuance. Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 mandates that no application for refund should be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The Court emphasized that this rule is mandatory, and the department must provide a hearing before passing the order. Decision and Remand: Considering the mandatory nature of Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017, the Court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders ZT0605210112439 and ZS0605210137340. The matter was remanded back to respondent No. 2 to reevaluate the refund applications of the petitioner after granting them an opportunity for a personal hearing, in compliance with the said rule.
|
