Appellate authority remands non-speaking Order-in-Original for lack of natural justice, emphasizes reasoned decision. .

The appellate authority found the Order-in-Original to be non-speaking and non-reasoned, lacking adherence to principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned order based on a fair hearing and compliance with legal provisions.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against Order-in-Original rejecting refund claim under Section 107 of CGST Act, 2017.
2. Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice and Refund Rejection Order.
3. Grounds of appeal challenging the Refund Rejection Order.
4. Interpretation of the rejection order and legal arguments presented.
5. Lack of mention of legal provisions in the rejection order.
6. Compliance with principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.

Issue 1: Appeal against Order-in-Original rejecting refund claim
The appellant, an Export Oriented Unit engaged in export of software services, filed a refund application of Input Tax Credit for the period April to June 2020. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the refund claim citing non-mention of export invoice references on the FIRC and discrepancies in the amount matching. The appellant challenged this decision through an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Issue 2: Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice and Refund Rejection Order
The appellant raised concerns about not receiving the Show Cause Notice and Refund Rejection Order, leading to an ex parte decision by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant highlighted the lack of information regarding the scheduled Personal Hearing due to non-receipt of the SCN, resulting in procedural irregularities.

Issue 3: Grounds of appeal challenging the Refund Rejection Order
The appellant contested the Refund Rejection Order on various grounds, including the wording of the order implying full approval of the refund claim, lack of legal support in the order, and procedural deficiencies in the adjudication process. The appellant argued that the rejection order was arbitrary and did not comply with legal requirements.

Issue 4: Interpretation of the rejection order and legal arguments presented
The appellant critiqued the rejection order's language, pointing out discrepancies and lack of legal basis. The appellant argued that the rejection order lacked clarity and failed to address the specifics of the refund claim, especially regarding the mention of export invoice references and matching amounts.

Issue 5: Lack of mention of legal provisions in the rejection order
The appellant emphasized the absence of specific legal provisions or sections cited in the rejection order, raising concerns about the validity and legal basis of the decision. The appellant contended that the rejection order was vague and did not adhere to the requirements of providing a reasoned decision based on relevant laws.

Issue 6: Compliance with principles of natural justice in the adjudication process
The Commissioner, in the appellate decision, noted procedural lapses in the adjudication process, including the appellant's inability to access crucial documents through the GST portal and the lack of proper communication regarding the show cause notice and personal hearing. The Commissioner highlighted the importance of following the principles of natural justice and providing a fair opportunity for the appellant to present their case.

In conclusion, the appellate authority found the Order-in-Original to be non-speaking and non-reasoned, lacking proper adherence to principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a detailed and reasoned order based on a fair hearing and compliance with legal provisions.

---