Erroneous refund demands require disclosure of the worksheet and factual basis before fresh adjudication.

A demand based on alleged erroneous refund could not be sustained where the record did not disclose the basis of the excess computation, the worksheet, or the circumstances in which the invoices were sought and allegedly not produced. Proper adjudication required disclosure of the factual foundation of the proposed demand so the assessee could respond meaningfully. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to supply the worksheet and related particulars, furnish the basis of the demand, and grant a personal hearing before fresh adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand raised on the basis of alleged erroneous refund could be sustained without furnishing the assessee the worksheet and factual basis for the proposed demand, and whether the matter required remand for a fresh adjudication after supplying particulars and granting hearing.

Analysis: The demand was founded on an alleged excess refund, but the record did not disclose the basis on which the excess amount was worked out, when the invoices were called for, or the occasion on which the assessee allegedly failed to produce them. In such circumstances, the assessee was entitled to know the foundation of the tentative view before submitting a reply. A proper opportunity to respond required disclosure of the basis of the demand and the relevant worksheet, followed by personal hearing.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to furnish the basis of the proposed erroneous refund demand, supply the worksheet and related particulars, and afford personal hearing to the assessee. The appeal succeeded.

---