Grant of adjournment in refund proceedings resulted in remand for fresh decision after hearing due to ex parte order

Grant of adjournment in refund proceedings was sought within the statutory adjournment regime but the authority passed an ex parte order without acceding to the adjournment request, thereby denying opportunity of hearing required by law; consequence: the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The refund claim must be decided afresh, with the authority to afford the applicant an opportunity to be heard and consider any adjournment requests in accordance with the statutory adjournment limit and applicable procedural safeguards, before reaching a final determination on the refund application.

---

---

Issues: Whether the ex-parte order rejecting the refund application should be quashed for failure to grant adjournment and opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 75(5) of the CGST Act and Rule 92(3) of the GST Rules.

Analysis: The petition challenges an ex-parte rejection of a refund application where the applicant sought adjournment within the statutory timeline under Section 75(5) and Rule 92(3). The statutory provision mandates that the proper officer shall grant time and adjourn the hearing where sufficient cause is shown, subject to a limitation of not more than three adjournments. The factual timeline is undisputed: the request for adjournment was made within the stipulated period and no determination was shown that the statutorily permitted adjournments had been exhausted. The authority passed the impugned order on the same date the adjournment request was made without recording reasons or granting the hearing opportunity required by Section 75(5).

Conclusion: The impugned ex-parte order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the authority to decide the refund application afresh in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing, to be completed within twelve weeks from receipt of the order.

---