Credit Agricole CIB Services Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors. (Bombay High Court)
In the case of Credit Agricole CIB Services Private Limited vs. Union of India & Ors., the Bombay High Court addressed the rejection of a refund application without affording the petitioner a proper hearing. The petitioner challenged the orders uploaded on April 25, 2024, which denied the refund claim without adhering to the requirements of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. This rule mandates a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to be heard before any rejection of their refund application.
The court found discrepancies in the procedural adherence. While the petitioner filed their reply to a show-cause notice by April 17, 2024, the respondent claimed a hearing had already been conducted on April 8, 2024—prior to the filing of the reply. The court noted a lack of evidence for intimation of this hearing and ruled that such actions violated the principles of natural justice and Rule 92(3). Consequently, the refund rejection orders were quashed, and the case was remanded for fresh consideration, with clear directions to provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
