2019 (9) TMI 1041 - HC - GST

Court Orders Personal Hearing & Fairness Emphasis in Refund Claim Rejection, Warns Non-Compliance Consequences

The court set aside the rejection of the refund claim due to lack of prior hearing and reasoning, directing a personal hearing for the Petitioner within ... Rejection of Refund claim - the screenshot of the GST portal annexed with the petition does not properly reflect the position and status “refund sanctioned” reflected on the website is erroneous. - there is no explanation as to why Respondent No. 4 is not present in Court - HELD THAT:- the competent officer of the Respondent directed to grant personal hearing to the Petitioner for consideration of the Petitioner’s claim. - The competent authority shall pass a reasoned order on the refund application of the Petitioner within two weeks positively, failing which Respondent No. 5 shall personally remain present in the Court. Ms. Suhani Mathur, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Harpreet Singh, Counsel for Respondent No. 4 assures that on the next date, Respondent No. 4 shall remain present in Court. List on 18.10.2019. Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim without prior hearing and reasoning2. Setting aside the rejection order and granting a hearing to the Petitioner3. Non-compliance of court order regarding the presence of specific officialsAnalysis:Issue 1: The court noted that the Petitioner's refund claim was rejected on 22.07.2019 without providing a prior hearing and without any reasoning. The Respondent acknowledged this lack of procedure and admitted the error in the rejection process.Issue 2: In response to the acknowledged shortcomings, the court decided to set aside the order rejecting the refund claim. The court directed the competent officer to grant a personal hearing to the Petitioner, issue a notice indicating any deficiencies, and pass a reasoned order on the refund application within two weeks. The court emphasized that they had not reviewed the merits of the claim, leaving the decision to the competent authority.Issue 3: The court highlighted non-compliance with a previous order regarding the presence of specific officials in court. While one official explained their absence due to a recent transfer, the absence of another official was not satisfactorily explained. The court warned of potential warrants for non-appearance in the future and directed the Commissioner of Delhi GST to be present in the next hearing.In conclusion, the court addressed the procedural irregularities in the rejection of the refund claim, ensuring a fair hearing for the Petitioner. The court also emphasized the importance of compliance with court orders regarding the presence of officials, indicating consequences for non-compliance. The case was listed for further proceedings on 18.10.2019.