An application for refund shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. This court is of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 – Refund –-- The petitioner challenged the legality and correctness of five identical orders all dated 26.06.2020 rejecting the refund claims in respect of unutilized input tax credit. The petitioner filed applications in the prescribed format claiming refund of unutilized ITC under section 16(3) of the IGST Act read with section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89. The respondent issued SCNs for rejection of application for refund. The petitioner submitted reply to the SCN, however, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that orders for rejection of refund claims were passed without giving any personal hearing. The respondent submitted that various e mails were exchanged with the department by the petitioner and he was given ample opportunity. The court observed that in terms of Rule 92, an application for refund shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The expression 'opportunity of being heard' is not an expression of empty formality. It is a part of the well-recognized principle of audi alteram partem which forms the fulcrum of natural justice and is central to fair procedure. Further this cannot be substituted by telephonic conversations and exchange of e-mails.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 26.06.2020 and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision, within a period of three months, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Since respondent No.4 has already taken a view on merit by disclosing her mind which is adverse to the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice and fairness if another competent officer is assigned the task of deciding the refund applications of the petitioner de novo on remand.
An application for refund shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. This court is of the view that the matter should be remanded back to the original authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017 – Refund –-- The petitioner challenged the legality and correctness of five identical orders all dated 26.06.2020 rejecting the refund claims in respect of unutilized input tax credit. The petitioner filed applications in the prescribed format claiming refund of unutilized ITC under section 16(3) of the IGST Act read with section 54 of the CGST Act and Rule 89. The respondent issued SCNs for rejection of application for refund. The petitioner submitted reply to the SCN, however, no personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that orders for rejection of refund claims were passed without giving any personal hearing. The respondent submitted that various e mails were exchanged with the department by the petitioner and he was given ample opportunity. The court observed that in terms of Rule 92, an application for refund shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The expression 'opportunity of being heard' is not an expression of empty formality. It is a part of the well-recognized principle of audi alteram partem which forms the fulcrum of natural justice and is central to fair procedure. Further this cannot be substituted by telephonic conversations and exchange of e-mails.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the impugned orders dated 26.06.2020 and remanded the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision, within a period of three months, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Since respondent No.4 has already taken a view on merit by disclosing her mind which is adverse to the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice and fairness if another competent officer is assigned the task of deciding the refund applications of the petitioner de novo on remand.