Without considering the request for adjournment impugned orders came to be passed rejecting the refund applications. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of personal hearing.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017— Refund - The petitioner prayed for quashing the refund rejection orders. The petitioner had paid IGST, but in light of his entitlement to claim refund on the ground of zero-rated supply, petitioner had sought for refund of the IGST paid by him under Section 54 of the Act, 2017. The Petitioner submitted that respondent had issued a SCN on 30.10.2020 calling upon him to furnish reply within 15 days and he was directed to appear on 03.11.2020. The petitioner sought time to make a detailed reply. An application for adjournment dated 03.11.2020 was also filed requesting for PH. But without waiting for the period of 15 days, refund application of the petitioner came to be rejected on 12.11.2020. Similarly in other SCNs, without waiting for reply, the orders were passed. The petitioner submitted that these orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice as the entitlement of the petitioner to avail of the time period of 15 days to make out a detailed reply on merits and the request for personal hearing has been denied. The court observed that the orders have been passed within a period of 15 days contrary to such period being made available to the petitioner and that request for adjournment has not been considered by the authorities.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders of rejection of refund and directed the respondent to afford the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing following the written representations of the petitioner.
Without considering the request for adjournment impugned orders came to be passed rejecting the refund applications. In the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of personal hearing.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017— Refund - The petitioner prayed for quashing the refund rejection orders. The petitioner had paid IGST, but in light of his entitlement to claim refund on the ground of zero-rated supply, petitioner had sought for refund of the IGST paid by him under Section 54 of the Act, 2017. The Petitioner submitted that respondent had issued a SCN on 30.10.2020 calling upon him to furnish reply within 15 days and he was directed to appear on 03.11.2020. The petitioner sought time to make a detailed reply. An application for adjournment dated 03.11.2020 was also filed requesting for PH. But without waiting for the period of 15 days, refund application of the petitioner came to be rejected on 12.11.2020. Similarly in other SCNs, without waiting for reply, the orders were passed. The petitioner submitted that these orders are in violation of the principles of natural justice as the entitlement of the petitioner to avail of the time period of 15 days to make out a detailed reply on merits and the request for personal hearing has been denied. The court observed that the orders have been passed within a period of 15 days contrary to such period being made available to the petitioner and that request for adjournment has not been considered by the authorities.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders of rejection of refund and directed the respondent to afford the petitioner a fresh opportunity of hearing following the written representations of the petitioner.