2025 (2) TMI 503 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-application of mind - rejection of petitioner s claim of refund on the premise that the petitioner had not filed the details sought for along with supporting documents - the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that they would pass orders afresh - HELD THAT - The impugned order is set aside. It is open to the respondents to pass orders afresh in accordance with law after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The present writ petition challenges an Order in Original in Form GST RFD -06 dated 27.11.2024, on the ground of non-application of mind. The order rejected the petitioner's claim of refund citing lack of filed details and supporting documents.The core legal question is whether the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind in rejecting the petitioner's refund claim despite the submission of requested documents.The petitioner had received an Email dated 22.10.2024 requesting specific details related to the refund claim. The petitioner responded with the required details via emails on 29.10.2024, 04.11.2024, and 08.11.2024. Subsequently, a notice dated 13.11.2024 was issued proposing to reject the refund claim and requesting further details, to which the petitioner replied on 26.11.2024 with the majority of the documents sought.The Court noted that despite the petitioner's submission of documents, the impugned order proceeded as if no documents were filed, indicating a lack of proper consideration. The respondent conceded to pass fresh orders upon this revelation.The Court set aside the impugned order, allowing the respondents to reevaluate the claim after providing the petitioner with a fair hearing. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.In conclusion, the Court found that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and directed the respondents to reconsider the refund claim after affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.