GST refund procedure requires proper safeguards before rejection can foreclose fresh consideration of a refund claim.

A refund rejection passed without the prescribed GST refund procedure, including issuance of a deficiency memo and opportunity of hearing, could not bar fresh consideration of a refund claim that was later pursued by the taxpayer. The earlier rejection was also not treated as conclusive where the original order was not uploaded on the GST portal and the subsequent refund application had been entertained but not carried to completion. The refund claim was therefore directed to be decided afresh by the designated officer in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier rejection or the appellate order, and the parties' contentions were left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the refund application was liable to be reconsidered in accordance with law notwithstanding the earlier rejection and the appellate order dismissing the appeal as time-barred, in view of the alleged non-compliance with the refund procedure under the CGST Rules.

Analysis: The earlier rejection of the refund application was found to be procedurally defective, as the record did not show issuance of a deficiency memo or grant of hearing before rejection, as contemplated by the refund procedure. The subsequent refund application had also been entertained by the department and a deficiency memo had been issued, but the application was not taken to its logical conclusion. The Court also noted that the original rejection order had not been uploaded on the GST portal and that the petitioner had pursued the matter rather than abandoning its claim. In these circumstances, the earlier orders were not treated as a proper basis to foreclose reconsideration of the refund claim.

Conclusion: The refund application was directed to be decided afresh by the designated officer in accordance with law, without being influenced by the earlier rejection order or the appellate order, and the parties' contentions were kept open.

Final Conclusion: The petitions resulted in a direction for reconsideration of the refund claim on the merits and in accordance with the statutory refund procedure.

Ratio Decidendi: A refund rejection that is passed without following the prescribed refund procedure and without affording the procedural safeguards required by the rules cannot be allowed to preclude fresh consideration of a subsequently pursued refund claim.

---