9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 371 - HC - GSTRefund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) - challenge to 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 N/N. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) as well as the corresponding notifications issued under the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned refund rejection order dated 29.06.2022 was decided without considering the submissions of the petitioner and without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - Violation of principles of natural justice. HELD THAT - The present petition is amongst a batch of petitions that were heard together being W.P.(C) No.1298/2023, W.P.(C) No.1300/2023 and W.P.(C) No.1303/2023 and W.P.(C) No.1298/2023 was heard as the lead matter. The questions raised in the present petition are covered by the decision rendered today in W.P.(C) No.1298/2023 2024 (5) TMI 177 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it was held that 'The orders rejecting the petitioner s application for refund, which are impugned in this petition, are set aside.' Matter remanded to the appropriate authority for consideration afresh - petition disposed off.
Issues:
Refund rejection under Section 54 of the CGST Act, challenge to Circular No.151/07/2021-GST, lack of consideration of submissions and personal hearing in refund rejection process. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the Refund Rejection Orders dated 29.06.2022 and 28.10.2022, which denied the refund of Goods and Services Tax (GST) filed under Section 54 of the CGST Act for the Financial Year 2019-20. The petitioner sought directions for refund and interest on the amount. Additionally, the petitioner contested the validity of Circular No.151/07/2021-GST, claiming it was ultra vires the provisions of relevant notifications under the CGST and DGST Acts. The refund application was for tax paid for services provided, excluding certain charges, and was acknowledged by the respondent. However, a Show Cause Notice was issued proposing cancellation of registration due to lack of supporting orders for the refund claim. The petitioner responded to the Show Cause Notice, explaining the payment made and reasons for not uploading supporting orders. Despite this, the refund was rejected on the grounds of not producing assessment, provisional assessment, appeal, or any other supporting order as per the CBIC circular. The petitioner argued that the rejection was done without considering their submissions or granting a personal hearing. The judgment was part of a batch of petitions, with one specific case being the lead matter. Following the decision in the lead case, 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 observations made in the lead case.
|
