Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Globus Petroadditions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order dated 12/02/2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) rejecting its GST refund claim for the periods Q2 and Q3. The petitioner had initially applied for refund on 02/02/2019, which was rejected on 02/05/2019 (Q2) and 01/05/2019 (Q3). The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), who on 14/10/2019 set aside the rejections and allowed the appeal. Pursuant to this, the petitioner filed a fresh refund claim on 04/11/2019, but the Assistant Commissioner again rejected it on 14/11/2019. The petitioner appealed again, and on 29/10/2020, the Commissioner set aside the rejection and directed a speaking order. On 15/02/2020, the petitioner filed a refund claim as directed, but on 12/02/2021, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim on the ground that the appellate order dated 14/10/2019 was not produced. The High Court noted that the show cause notice issued before the rejection did not mention this ground, and the petitioner had already produced the appellate order in earlier proceedings. The court held that the rejection was unsustainable as it violated principles of natural justice and was contrary to the appellate order. The court quashed the impugned order and directed the Assistant Commissioner to recompute the refund claim in accordance with law within four weeks.
Headnote
A) GST - Refund Claim - Rejection on New Ground - Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 - The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellate order dated 14/10/2019 was not produced, which was not mentioned in the show cause notice. The High Court held that the rejection was unsustainable as it violated principles of natural justice and the appellate order had already been complied with. (Paras 6-7) B) GST - Appellate Order - Compliance - Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 - The appellate authority had set aside the earlier rejection and directed a speaking order. The Assistant Commissioner's subsequent rejection on a new ground was held to be in defiance of the appellate order. The court directed the authority to recompute the refund in accordance with law. (Paras 8-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Assistant Commissioner could reject the refund claim on a ground not mentioned in the show cause notice and contrary to the appellate order.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 12/02/2021 is quashed and set aside. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to recompute the refund claim in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Refund claim cannot be rejected on grounds not raised in the show cause notice
- Appellate authority's order must be complied with
- Speaking order required
- Natural justice principles
