Court remands GSTR-3B refund claims case for fair hearing & compliance with COVID-19 extensions

The case involved the rejection of refund claims for non-filing of GSTR-3B electronically, alleged violation of natural justice principles, non-receipt of notices, and compliance with extended COVID-19 deadlines. The court found that the orders were passed without proper opportunity for the appellant to be heard, disregarding the pandemic-related deadline extensions and principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fair hearing and reasoned order, directing the appellant to submit their arguments. All four appeals were disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of refund claims due to non-filing of GSTR-3B electronically.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Non-receipt of Show Cause Notices and hearing notices.
4. Compliance with extended deadlines due to COVID-19 pandemic.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Rejection of Refund Claims Due to Non-filing of GSTR-3B Electronically:
The appellant filed refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017, for duty paid on the supply of goods to SEZ units. The adjudicating authority rejected these claims on the grounds that the appellant had filed GSTR-3B returns physically instead of electronically on the GST portal. This resulted in the GST liabilities remaining in the Electronic Cash Ledger or Electronic Credit Ledger without being credited to the Government Account, leading to the conclusion that there was no payment of tax in the Government Account. Consequently, the refund claims were deemed inadmissible as per Section 54(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which allows refunds only for amounts paid on account of tax, interest, penalty, etc.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant contended that the rejection of their refund claims violated the principles of natural justice. They argued that the adjudicating authority acted in haste, issuing the impugned orders within 11 working days from the date of the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The appellant highlighted that due to the nationwide lockdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, they were unable to track the status of their refund applications and did not receive the SCNs. The rejection of the refund claims without providing a proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case was deemed unfair and against the law.

3. Non-receipt of Show Cause Notices and Hearing Notices:
The appellant claimed that they did not receive the SCNs or notices for personal hearings either through post/courier or on the GST portal. They emphasized that no other opportunity for a hearing was granted, which led to a lack of proper opportunity to present their submissions. The appellant referred to Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that an opportunity of hearing should be granted where an adverse decision is contemplated, and adjournments should be allowed for sufficient cause, up to three times during the proceedings.

4. Compliance with Extended Deadlines Due to COVID-19 Pandemic:
The appellant argued that the impugned orders were issued against the backdrop of Notification No. 35/2020-Central Tax, dated 3-4-2020, and Notification No. 55/2020-Central Tax, which extended the time limits for various compliances, including filing appeals and replies, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant maintained that the rejection of their refund claims without considering these extended deadlines was unjust. They further argued that the adjudicating authority should have sought additional information or documents to verify the tax payments and safeguard revenue, rather than outright rejecting the claims.

Conclusion:
Upon reviewing the facts and submissions, it was found that the impugned orders were passed without providing the appellant a proper opportunity to be heard. The adjudicating authority failed to consider the extended deadlines due to the COVID-19 pandemic and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority to provide the appellant with a proper hearing and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. The appellant was also directed to submit their submissions before the adjudicating authority. All four appeals were disposed of in this manner.

---