2021 (3) TMI 61 - HC - GST

Court orders review of GST refund rejections, stressing procedural fairness and right to be heard

M/s. Asiatic Clinical Research Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Commissioner of Central Tax Bangalore South, The Asst. Commissioner of Central Taxes South Division-3

The Court set aside the rejection orders for refund applications under the Goods and Service Tax Act, citing violations of natural justice principles. It ... Refund of IGST - zero-rated supply - Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - opportunity of personal hearing not availed - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Taking note that an opportunity of personal hearing was not availed, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the petitioner is afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to substantiate the detailed replies made, as per the acknowledgements at Annexures-F and F1. Accordingly, the orders at Annexures-A and A1 are set aside. Petitioner to be present for availing of opportunity of personal hearing, when such an opportunity is granted while disposing of the application of the petitioner and a common date may be fixed in order to avoid conflicting orders to be passed as the factual matrix is similar and question of consideration is also identical - petition disposed off. Issues:1. Refund rejection orders for different months2. Violation of principles of natural justice3. Consideration of request for adjournment4. Opportunity of personal hearingAnalysis:Issue 1: Refund rejection orders for different monthsThe petitioner, a registered supplier under the Goods and Service Tax Regime involved in the export of service, sought refunds of IGST paid under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The rejection of refund orders for different months (October 2018, April 2018 to September 2018, November 2018, and December 2018) was challenged collectively in the writ petitions.Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justiceThe petitioner contended that the refund rejection orders were in violation of the principles of natural justice as the authorities did not allow the petitioner the full 15-day period to respond to show cause notices and denied the request for personal hearings. The rejection orders were passed prematurely without considering the petitioner's submissions, leading to the challenge based on the denial of procedural fairness.Issue 3: Consideration of request for adjournmentThe petitioner had made requests for adjournment and extensions of time to file detailed replies to the show cause notices. However, the authorities did not consider these requests and proceeded to reject the refund applications before the full period of 15 days was granted to the petitioner. This failure to consider the petitioner's requests for adjournment was a crucial aspect in the challenge against the rejection orders.Issue 4: Opportunity of personal hearingIn the interest of justice, the Court directed that the petitioner be afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to substantiate the detailed replies made in response to the show cause notices. Despite contentions from the Revenue that a personal hearing was initially fixed, the Court emphasized the importance of allowing the petitioner to present his case in person to ensure a fair consideration of the matter.In conclusion, the Court set aside the rejection orders for all the writ petitions and directed the authorities to afford the petitioner fresh opportunities for hearing, including filing detailed replies and conducting personal hearings within specified timelines. The Court highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the right to be heard, ensuring that the petitioner's submissions are duly considered before making decisions on the refund applications.