2024 (4) TMI 1190 - HC - GST

Refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) - challenge to Circular being Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST) dated 17.06.2021 as ultra vires the provisions of entry at Serial No. 66(a) read with Paragraph 2(y) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as well as the corresponding notifications issued under the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - submissions of petitioner not considered - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned refund rejection order dated 30.06.2022 was decided without considering the submissions of the petitioner and without granting it any opportunity of personal hearing. The present petition is also disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the appropriate authority for consideration afresh.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund rejection under Section 54 of CGST Act
2. Validity of Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST
3. Lack of consideration of submissions and personal hearing in refund rejection

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the Refund Rejection Orders dated 30.06.2022 and 28.10.2022, which denied the refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) filed under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner sought directions for refund of GST paid from July 2017 to March 2018, along with interest. Additionally, the petitioner contested the validity of Circular No. 151/07/2021-GST as ultra vires the relevant provisions. The refund application was based on services provided for conducting examinations, including NEET and examination services for DNB and FNB courses. The acknowledgment of the refund application was issued, but a Show Cause Notice proposing registration cancellation was also sent due to lack of supporting orders and reasons for depositing the amount.

The petitioner responded to the Show Cause Notice and explained the reasons for depositing the payment. Despite this, the refund was rejected on the grounds that no assessment, provisional assessment, appeal, or supporting order was provided. The petitioner argued that the rejection was decided without considering their submissions or granting a personal hearing. The judgment was part of a batch of petitions, with the lead matter being W.P.(C) No. 1298/2023, which addressed similar issues. Following the decision in W.P.(C) No. 1298/2023, the present petition was disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter for reconsideration by the appropriate authority in light of the court's observations.