Case Law Details
Carbon Resources Private Limited Vs Union of India (Jharkhand High Court)
The Jharkhand High Court disposed of two writ petitions together by a common order, as they involved similar facts and issues. The petitions challenged a refund rejection order dated 23 May 2025 and a subsequent rectification order dated 30 May 2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division Giridih. The petitioner sought quashing of both orders on the ground that they were passed without considering the documents submitted and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Court examined the procedure prescribed under Rule 92(3) of the CGST/JGST Rules, 2017, which mandates that when a refund claim is proposed to be rejected, the proper officer must issue a notice in Form GST RFD-08, grant the applicant fifteen days to submit a reply in Form GST RFD-09, and provide an opportunity of being heard before passing an order in Form GST RFD-06. The proviso to the rule specifically states that no refund application shall be rejected without granting the applicant an opportunity of hearing.
It was admitted before the Court that there was non-compliance with Rule 92(3). Instead of the statutory period of fifteen days, the petitioner was granted only seven days to furnish a reply and to appear in person. Further, despite repeated requests, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing prior to the passing of the refund rejection order dated 23 May 2025.
The Court noted that although a rectification order was subsequently passed on 30 May 2025 affirming the earlier rejection, the rectification order also failed to address or cure the non-compliance with Rule 92. The procedural defect relating to denial of adequate time and opportunity of hearing therefore continued to persist.
In view of the admitted violation of Rule 92(3) and the principles of natural justice, the Court set aside both the refund rejection order dated 23 May 2025 and the rectification order dated 30 May 2025. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division Giridih, for fresh adjudication.
The Court directed that the petitioner be granted a full period of fifteen days to submit a reply and that a personal hearing be afforded before passing the final order. The parties were directed to appear before the adjudicating authority on 10 December 2025. With these directions, both writ petitions were allowed and disposed of, and any pending applications were also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
1. Since similar facts and issues are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. For the sake of convenience, the substantial reliefs as sought for in W.P. (T) No. 3532 of 2025 are being reproduced herein-below:-
(A) For declaration by way of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s) to quash and set aside the refund rejection order in form GST RFD-06 having reference no. ZD200525006454W dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure-7) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division Giridih, being the Respondent No. 2;
(B) For declaration by way of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s) to quash and set aside the rectification order having no. 04/AC/REFUND/GST/2025-26 dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-9) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division – Giridih, being the Respondent No. 2;
(C) For declaration by way of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ(s) that the refund rejection order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure-7) and the rectification order dated 30.05.2025 (Annexure-9) has been passed without considering the documents submitted by the Petitioner and in violation to the principles of natural justice;
3. Admittedly, there has been a non-compliance of the provision of Rule 92 Sub Rule 3 of the CGST/JGST Rules, 2017 which reads as under:
“(3) 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 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 an opportunity of being heard.”
4. The reason being that is against period of 15 days the petitioner admittedly was granted only 7 days time to furnish reply and also to appear in person. Moreover, the petitioner despite repeated requests was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 (Annexure-7).
5. No doubt, rectification order has thereafter been passed affirming the order dated 23rd of May, 2025. However, this rectification order dated 30th of May, 2025 also does not take into consideration the effect of non-compliance of Rule 92 aforesaid ibid.
6. Accordingly, the order dated 23rd May 2025 (Annexure-7) and order dated 30th May 2025 (Annexure-9) are ordered to be set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2nd Respondent, i.e., The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division – Giridih, for a decision afresh, who, in addition to affording an opportunity to furnish a reply within a period of 15 days, shall additionally hear the petitioner before passing the final order.
7. The parties are directed to appear before the 2nd respondent on 10th of December, 2025.
8. Both the writ petitions are allowed and disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
