Court grants writ petition, sets aside order rejecting refund claim; Emphasizes natural justice principles.

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order that rejected the petitioner's refund claim without considering their reply or affording a personal hearing. The court emphasized the violation of natural justice principles and directed the respondent to reconsider the application based on the petitioner's explanations and after providing a personal hearing. The respondent was given six weeks to complete this process without any costs imposed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim by the respondent without considering petitioner's reply and without affording a personal hearing.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a refund of integrated tax amounting to Rs. 75,67,642 based on grounds presented in their refund application. The respondent issued a deficiency memo on July 4, 2018, highlighting certain deficiencies and advised the petitioner to file a fresh refund application after rectification. The petitioner responded on July 13, 2018, refuting the deficiencies and requesting the respondent to consider their application, also asking for a personal hearing if needed. However, the respondent passed the impugned order without acknowledging the petitioner's reply or providing a personal hearing, reiterating the reasons stated in the deficiency memo.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent unjustly ignored the petitioner's explanations in the reply and failed to grant a personal hearing despite the request. On the contrary, the respondent's counsel contended that a fresh refund application should have been filed after the deficiencies were pointed out, although admitting that no personal hearing was conducted, deeming it unnecessary in the circumstances.

After hearing both sides, the court refrained from expressing a view on the refund claim's merits, emphasizing it was the respondent's prerogative to decide. The court found that the impugned order disregarded the petitioner's reply, violated natural justice principles by not providing a personal hearing, and merely reiterated the deficiencies without considering the petitioner's explanations. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondent to reconsider the application based on the petitioner's reply and after affording a personal hearing. The respondent was instructed to complete this process within six weeks from the date of the court's order, with no costs imposed.

---