9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of law/rules for rejection of their refund claims. It is also found that non-passing of speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Before passing of orders atleast their request for seeking of some other date for personal hearing in the matter should have been considered and at least speaking order should have been passed by giving proper opportunity of personal hearing in the matter to the appellant and detailing factors leading to rejection of refund claims. Such orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly set aside. The appellant is directed to submit all relevant documents to the adjudicating authority and the claims will be processed by the adjudicating authority as per the provisions and proce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 88/- 2. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/90/X/2020 ZW0804200051171 dated 04.04.2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of ₹ 10,008/- for the period November 2017 in respect of excess Tax paid in GSTR 3B return. Refund rejected ₹ 5004/- (CGST) + ₹ 5004/- (SGST) Total ₹ 10,008/- 3. APPL/JPR/CGST/JP/91/X/2020 ZX0804200051237 dated 04.04.2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of ₹ 6982/- for the period September 2017 in respect of excess Tax paid in GSTR 3B return. Refund rejected ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of agreement or disagreement from the allegation leveled vide show cause notice by the designated authority. The adjudicating authority has overlooked the said facts in entirety. - that the appellant was very well eligible for the refund claims as per guidelines issued by the Government, as much as, the show cause notice were issued without mentioning any reason of issuing the same. - that the personal hearing afforded by the adjudicating authority to appear on 25.03.2020 was the first chance to appear and present such case and even after seeking adjournment, order issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking suomoto cognizance the Ld. adjudicating authority entirely overlooked the position of law and passed the impugned order reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the refund claims without discussing any relevant provisions of law/rules. Thus, the appellant did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing in the matter and without considering their submission the adjudicating authority has passed the orders. 7. Further, as per first proviso to sub rule (3) of Rule 92 of CGST Rule, 2017- Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
