Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Credit Agricole CIB Services Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging refund rejection orders uploaded on the department's website on 25 April 2024. The petitioner had applied for a refund via applications dated 25 April 2024, but on 3 April 2024, show-cause notices were issued giving 15 days to reply under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017. The petitioner filed its reply on 16 April 2024, uploaded on 17 April 2024. The impugned refund rejection orders were uploaded on 25 April 2024 without referring to any personal hearing. The respondent argued that a personal hearing was given on 8 April 2024, producing a screenshot of FORM-GST-RFD-01. The court noted that the show cause notice gave 15 days to respond, and the petitioner responded by 17 April 2024. It found it incomprehensible that a hearing was allegedly given on 8 April 2024, before the reply was filed. The court held that the proviso to Rule 92(3) requires a reasonable opportunity of being heard after the reply is filed. Since the impugned orders were in breach of Rule 92(3) and principles of natural justice, the court quashed the orders and remanded the matter to Respondent No.3 for fresh consideration, directing that the petitioner be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and a reasoned order be passed within four weeks. All contentions on merits were left open.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Reasonable Opportunity of Being Heard - Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - The court considered whether the refund rejection orders were passed in violation of natural justice as the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard after filing its reply. The court held that the hearing must be after the reply is filed within the time prescribed in the show cause notice, and the impugned orders were in breach of Rule 92(3) and principles of natural justice. (Paras 8-11) B) Goods and Services Tax - Refund Rejection - Personal Hearing - Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 - The court examined the requirement of personal hearing under the proviso to Rule 92(3). It held that the alleged hearing on 8 April 2024, before the petitioner's reply was filed on 17 April 2024, did not satisfy the requirement of reasonable opportunity. The orders were quashed and remanded for fresh consideration with a proper hearing. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refund rejection orders passed without giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard as required under the proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, 2017 are sustainable.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the refund rejection orders dated 25 April 2024 and remanded the matter to Respondent No.3 for fresh consideration of the petitioner's refund application dated 28 February 2024, directing that the petitioner be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard and a reasoned order be passed within four weeks. All contentions on merits were left open. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- reasonable opportunity of being heard
- refund rejection
- Rule 92(3) CGST Rules 2017
- personal hearing after reply
- quash and remand
