Condonation of Delay requires a reasoned order and hearing; application must be decided afresh after opportunity to be heard.

Rule 96A(1)(b) condonation of delay for receipt of remittance for export of services requires a decision made in accordance with principles of fair procedure; this includes affording the applicant an opportunity to be heard and recording reasons for acceptance or rejection. The impugned communication was a note/notification without a contemporaneous, reasoned order or consideration of the petitioner's substantive grounds and therefore does not qualify as a valid order. The matter is remitted for fresh decision after hearing and for recording of reasons in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the communication rejecting condonation of delay in receipt of remittance for export of services under Rule 96A(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, constitutes a valid order and whether the matter requires reconsideration after affording an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The impugned instrument is a communication/notification of a purported decision rather than a reasoned order passed by the competent authority. The record shows a note by a subordinate officer with the Commissioner s endorsement but no contemporaneous order recorded after consideration of the petitioner s grounds or after affording an opportunity of hearing. The legal framework under Rule 96A(1)(b) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 permits consideration of applications for condonation of delay in relation to receipt of remittance; such consideration requires a decision rendered in accordance with principles of fair procedure, including giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard and recording reasons for acceptance or rejection of the application. Procedural irregularity is exacerbated where the authority has not addressed the substantive grounds raised by the applicant.

Conclusion: The impugned communication does not amount to a valid order; the matter is remitted to the competent authority to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh in accordance with law after affording the applicant an opportunity of hearing and after recording reasons for the decision.

---