Richie Rich Exim Solutions Vs Commissioner of CGST Delhi South (Delhi High Court)
In this case GST refund was rejected without giving a personal hearing as per proviso to rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 and in view of the same Delhi High Court set aside the order.
A perusal of the audit history does establish the veracity of the assertions made by the petitioner, which is, that it does not reveal that hearing for its refund application was fixed on 29.12.2020. Since the audit history, as noticed above, is a document generated by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent has not been able to discharge the onus which is placed on it, to demonstrate that a date had been fixed for grant of personal hearing to the petitioner.
That being the position, the impugned order passed in the petitioner’s refund application, in our view, is flawed, as the proviso to sub-rule 3 of Rule 92 of the CGST Rules clearly obliges the respondent to grant a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of hearing before rejecting the application for refund.
Since the respondent was mandatorily required to grant reasonable opportunity to the petitioner before rejecting its application for refund, there has been, as contended by Mr Jain, a breach of the principles of natural justice.
Furthermore, according to us, the order of rejection i.e., the impugned order has given no reasons as to why refund sought by the petitioner was neither admissible nor payable. Mr Jain is right that the only ground given was that the supplier of the petitioner was reported as “risky”, which, to our minds, does not convey much.
Therefore, for the reasons given hereinabove, we are inclined to accept the stance taken on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.The respondent shall hear the petitioner in support of its refund application, before passing a fresh order with regard to the same.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
