https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400124 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards and adherence to the right to be heard under Rule 92[3] of the CGST Rules, 2017. The impugned order was quashed, and the case remanded for reconsideration by the fourth respondent, with directions for the petitioner to appear for a hearing. The judgment highlighted the significance of the right to be heard and the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in matters concerning tax refunds under the CGST Act and Rules. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Mar 2025 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400124 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of procedural safeguards and adherence to the right to be heard under Rule 92[3] of the CGST Rules, 2017. The impugned order was quashed, and the case remanded for reconsideration by the fourth respondent, with directions for the petitioner to appear for a hearing. The judgment highlighted the significance of the right to be heard and the necessity of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in matters concerning tax refunds under the CGST Act and Rules. Case-Laws GST Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400124