9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 1318 - HC - GSTRefund claim - no opportunity of being heard - non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 92 (3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Respondents have filed an affidavit that a hearing was given to the representative of the Petitioner. However, the same has not been made good. In any event, Rule 92 (3) contemplates issue of a notice to the applicant to show cause as to why refund should not be ordered and upon considering the reply of the applicant, an order has to be made. The proviso also states that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The impugned orders set aside to the extent they deny the Petitioner a refund. The Respondents will now have to comply with the requirements of Rule 92 (3) and decide the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible. By setting aside the impugned orders to the extent they deny the refund, the matter restored before the concerned Respondent for disposal of the refund application in accordance with law and by complying with the requirements Rule 92 (3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 - petition disposed off.
Issues: Petition for refund under Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017; Compliance with procedural requirements for refund application; Denial of refund by Respondents; Hearing and opportunity of being heard for refund application; Filing of undertakings by Petitioner; Restoration of matter for disposal of refund application.
Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition filed by the Petitioner seeking a refund under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The Petitioner had applied for a refund, and while some refunds were granted, others were rejected by the Respondents. The primary grievance of the Petitioner was the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The said rule mandates that the proper officer must issue a notice to the applicant in case of any inadmissible or non-payable refund, allowing the applicant an opportunity to furnish a reply before making a decision on the refund claim. The rule also requires that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Respondents contended that a hearing was given to the Petitioner's representative, but the compliance with the procedural requirements was not adequately demonstrated. The Court, after considering the submissions, set aside the impugned orders that denied the Petitioner a refund. The Court directed the Respondents to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 92(3) and decide the matter afresh promptly. Furthermore, the judgment addressed the issue of the Petitioner filing undertakings not to press for a refund for certain periods. While the Respondent argued that the undertakings were voluntarily given and benefits were derived by the Petitioner, the Court refrained from adjudicating on this controversy. The Court clarified that by setting aside the orders denying the refund, the matter was restored before the Respondent for proper disposal in accordance with the law and by adhering to the requirements of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. In conclusion, the Court made the Rule absolute without any order for costs, emphasizing that all contentions regarding the refund, including those related to the filing of undertakings, were explicitly kept open. All parties involved were instructed to act on an authenticated copy of the order for further proceedings.
|
