Case Law Details
Navneet R. Jhanwar Vs State Tax Officer and others (Jammu and Kashmir High Court)
Admittedly, the claim for refund was initially sought to be rejected by respondent No.1 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Section 54 of the Act provides a period of two years for making an application for refund from the relevant date. The delay, however, was explained by the petitioner by bringing it to the notice of respondent No.1 two notifications dated 03.04.2020 and 27.05.2020 issued by respondent No.3 providing for extension of limitation upto 31.08.2020 on account of lockdown due to outbreak of corona virus pandemic. Respondent No.1 was quick to realize the mistake and treated the claim for refund filed by the petitioner in time. Having done so, respondent No.1 proceeded to determine the claim of the petitioner on merits. As mandated by Rule 92 and is also the demand of principles of natural justice, no notice of show cause was given to the petitioner to explain as to why his claim for refund may not be rejected on merits. A unilateral decision was taken and the petitioner was conveyed the outcome of such decision i.e. rejection of the claim of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct that with regard to the passing of order of rejection of the refund claim of the petitioner on merits, he was never put on notice nor was any opportunity of being heard ever afforded to him. It is, thus, apparent that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority i.e. respondent No.1 herein traverses beyond the scope of show cause notice, which was served upon the petitioner to show cause as to why his claim should not be rejected having been filed beyond limitation.
Viewed thus, impugned order of rejection of refund claim of the petitioner is not inconformity with the proposal made in the show cause notice that was served upon the petitioner when the adjudicating authority found it barred by limitation. The grounds on which the impugned order has been passed were never proposed to the petitioner nor was he ever given any opportunity to explain his position. It is, thus, clear case of violation of principle of natural justice as also proviso to Rule 92(3) of the Rules of 2017.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
