Set aside earlier orders; refund application remanded for fresh decision with personal hearing and reasoned order within three months

HC set aside the impugned orders of 23 June 2020 and 18 August 2021 and remanded the refund application for fresh consideration, noting earlier High Court decisions (including a Gujarat HC decision) were not considered. The proper officer is directed to decide the application afresh within three months of receiving an authenticated copy of this order and a compilation of authorities the applicant relies upon, to afford a personal hearing and to pass a reasoned order. Petition disposed of.

---

---

Petitioner challenged orders dated 23 June 2020 and 18 August 2021 rejecting a refund application under Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and sought a declaration that Rule 90(3) of the CGST and SGST Rules is ultra vires Section 54(3). Counsel relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in M/s. Darshan Processors (26 July 2024) construing Rule 90(3) to count limitation "from the date of the original application" rather than from a subsequent re-filing after curing deficiencies; several other High Courts have taken a similar view. Court noted challenges to the constitutional validity of Rules must be approached with caution and observed the impugned orders did not consider Darshan Processors or similar decisions. In the interest of justice, the impugned orders were set aside and the proper officer directed to decide the refund application afresh within three months of receipt of an authenticated copy and a compilation of relied authorities, to afford a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order. The question of Rule 90(3)'s validity was "expressly kept open."

---