Sahibabad Printers Vs Additional Commissioner CGST (Appeals) And Others (Allahabad High Court)
Counsel for the petitioner argues that as the show cause notice was silent, the petitioner could not have been expected to give any reply and further questioning the appellate order he argues that the appellate authority was wrong in recording that no document has been produced, as the application of the petitioner for refund in Form RFD-01 was well with the department.
Sri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, counsel for the respondent on the other hand has tried to justify the order by saying that once the petitioner had not filed the refund documents, the department was bound to reject the refund claim of the petitioner and the same has been rightly rejected. He has further justified the appellate order by arguing that no error can be found out in the order passed by the appellate authority.
Considering the rival submissions made at the Bar and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I have no hesitation in holding that in quasi judicial proceedings that too relating to financial adjudication, the proposed reasons for rejection should be specifically contained and informed to the assessee so as to enable him to give his reply in a conclusive and reasonable manner. The perusal of the show cause notice in the present case fall short of all the known principles of natural justice and no prudent man could have given reply to the kind of show cause notice, which was served upon the petitioner. For the sole reason that the order rejecting the claim is based upon a silent show cause notice, I have no hesitation in holding that the principles of natural justice have been violated while adjudication of refund claim of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the order dated 07.04.2020 as well as the appellate order dated 14.09.2020 are set aside. The respondent no. 2 is directed to passed a fresh order on the application of the petitioner, for refund, already filed by the petitioner under Form RFD-01, after supplying all the requisite documents and the ground on which the department proposes to reject the application and after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law. The said application shall be decided as expeditiously, if possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of the copy of this order.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.09.2020, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 07.04.2020, passed by the respondent no. 2, has been rejected as well as the order dated 07.04.2020 whereby the application for refund has been rejected by the respondent no. 2. As the tribunal envisaged in the GST Act has not been constituted, the petitioner has approached this court as the petitioner cannot be left remediless.
That facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be a registered supplier under the GST Act and claims to have done job work on cloth and other suppliers for the period April, 2018 to July, 2018. The petitioner submits that on account of inward supply of inverted rated inputs the petitioner was entitled to refund. As such, he filed an application for refund in Form RFD-01 claiming a refund of Rs. 13,68,758/- under inverted duty structure on the portal for the period April 2018 to July 2018. The said application was allotted a number and was dated 24.02.2020. The respondent no. 2 on 19.03.2020 issued a show cause notice in Form GST-RFD-08 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the refund application may not be rejected. The reason as disclosed in the show cause notice (Annexure-2) is “Other”. The said show cause notice is being quoted herein below:-
“FORM-GST-RFD-08
[See rule 92(3)]
Notice for rejection of application for refund
SCN No. : ZY0903200309070
Date: 19/03/2020 3:44 PM
To
09ABCFS0715R1ZR
SAHIBABAD PRINTERS
182/3, G.T. Road, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, 09,201005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO… ZT0903200075192
ARN: AA0902200865870 Date : 24/02/2020 12:00 AM
This has reference to your above mentioned application for refund, filed under section 54 of the Act. On examination, it appears that refund application is liable to be rejected on account of the following reasons:
