2023 (9) TMI 789 - HC - GST

Refund of IGST - exparte order - opportunity of a hearing not provided to the petitioner - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The present proceeding would stand covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the petitioners own case M/s. Knowledge Capital Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2023 (4) TMI 752 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT had set aside the order impugned therein which was similar to the order as impugned in the present proceedings, with a direction that the refund application be restored to the file of the authority to be processed as per the procedure as applicable and as discussed in the said judgment. For the reasons as recorded in such judgment, it is opined that the respondent No.3 needs to follow the procedure which has been set out in the rules - it is found that such a procedure was not followed in the present case by respondent No.3 passing the ex-parte order. The impugned order dated 25 July 2022 is quashed and set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The petition challenges the rejection of a refund application under Article 226 of the Constitution based on Sections 16 and 54 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The main issue is the lack of opportunity for a hearing in an ex-parte order concerning the refund application from April 2019 to March 2020.

Judgment Details:

Issue 1: Lack of Opportunity for Hearing
The petitioner's grievance was that the impugned order rejecting the refund application was passed without providing an opportunity for a hearing. The petitioner's counsel cited a previous judgment in a similar case where the order was set aside and the application was directed to be processed following the applicable procedure. The court agreed that the present case was similar to the previous one and found that the procedure set out in the rules was not followed by the authority in passing the ex-parte order. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the impugned order and restored the refund application to be decided afresh by following the appropriate procedure and in accordance with the law.

Issue 2: Direction for Fresh Orders
The court directed that if there were any deficiencies in the application, they should be promptly communicated to the petitioner within three weeks. The refund application was to be decided within ten weeks from the date of the court order. Additionally, all contentions of the parties were expressly kept open. The petition was disposed of with no costs awarded.

In summary, the High Court of Bombay allowed the petition, quashed the order rejecting the refund application, and directed a fresh decision following the proper procedure and within the specified timelines.