9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o know why his application is being rejected so that he could get an opportunity to satisfy the authority that the tentative reason/satisfaction is not correct. The object and purpose seems to minimise the error in the decision making process. If what has been stated in the GST-RFD-08 notice with regard to reasons is juxtaposed with the reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order to reject the claim of refund, it would be clear that what was stated in the impugned order to reject claim for refund was not at all stated, even briefly, in the show cause notice issued under Rule 92(3) of the Rules of 2017. It is, thus, apparent that the issuance of show cause notice was a farce and an empty formality by the authority rather than making it a meaningful exercise requiring the assessee to offer its application for claim of refund - The provisions contained in Rule 92(3) of the Rules of 2017 incorporate the principles of natural justice as it mandates and obligates the proper officer to disclose to the applicant the reason for his tentative decision to reject refund application with an object to invite response, consider the same and pass the order. Therefore, there is apparent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me engrafted in Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017 ), which mandatorily require the competent authority that in case it is not satisfied with claim of refund, a notice stating the reasons for proposed rejection of claim is required to be given. However, it is contended, the show cause notice in FORM GST-RFD-08 was completely non-speaking and did not incorporate any reason whatsoever. On speculative basis, the petitioner submitted reply. It was only when the final order was passed that it emerged as to what was the reason for not accepting the claim for refund. Therefore, it is contended, the order passed by the authority is in apparent violation of principles of natural justice incorporated under statutory scheme of Rule 92 (3) of the Rules of 2017. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the case be remitted for consideration afresh by the competent authority. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents would submit that the petitioner is raising only technical grounds. He would submit that present is not a case where no opportunity of hearing was afforded. Learned counsel would submit that the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in FORM GST RFD-06, sanctioning the amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the said order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed: Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. A fair, logical and rational interpretation of the aforesaid provision would be that in case proper officer is satisfied that claim for refund is not admissible either wholly or in part or in a case where it is found to be not payable for some other reasons, then it is required to issue a notice in FORM GST-RFD-08 to the applicant requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST-RFD-09 within a stipulated period. The aforesaid provision incorporates the principles of natural justice. The present is not a case where th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the authority in all the cases for the first time disclosed the reason why the authority was not satisfied that any refund is admissible in law. One of the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 (in relation to claim of refund towards GST paid for the month of October, 2020) reads as below:- करदाता द्वारा प्रस्तुत रिफंड आवेदन एवं सुनवाई के क्रम में प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजो एवं तथ्यों का अवलोकन तथा विधिक प्रावधानों अनुसार जांच कि गयी | बाद अवलोकन य& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2319;सटी कर अधिनियम 2017 के रिफंड प्रावधानों कि धारा 54 कि उप धारा (8) निम्नानुसार है:- (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (5), the refundable amount shall, instead of being credited to the Fund, be paid to the applicant, if such amount is relatable to- (a)--------- (b)--------- (c)--------- (d)--------- (e) the tax and interest, if any, or any other amount paid by the applicant, if he had not passed on the incidence of such tax and interest to any other person; or उपरोक्तानुसार रिफंड प्रावधानों कि धारा 54 कि उप धारा (8)( e ) में स्पष् ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2340; रिफंड आवेदन पत्र RFD-01, ARN-AA081222013516N दिनांक 07.12.2022 राशि रु. 264000/- देय नहीं पायी जाने के कारण अस्वीकृति किया जाता है | 15. If what has been stated in the GST-RFD-08 notice with regard to reasons is juxtaposed with the reasons which have been assigned in the impugned order to reject the claim of refund, it would be clear that what was stated in the impugned order to reject claim for refund was not at all stated, even briefly, in the show cause notice issued under Rule 92(3) of the Rules of 2017. It is, thus, apparent that the issuance of show cause notice was a farce and an empty formality by the authority rather than making it a meaningful exercise requiring the assessee to offer its application for claim of refund. 16. The provisions contained in Rule 92(3) of the Rules o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
