https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417702 The High Court of Bombay set aside the Order rejecting the Petitioner's refund application as it failed to provide reasons as required by Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court deemed the absence of reasons in the Order as a violation of the rule and directed the Respondent to issue a fresh Order after giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Petitioner was instructed to attend a personal hearing, and the Respondent was required to issue a new decision within three weeks of the hearing, independent of the previous Order, and communicate the outcome promptly. en-us Tue, 25 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417702 The High Court of Bombay set aside the Order rejecting the Petitioner's refund application as it failed to provide reasons as required by Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. The Court deemed the absence of reasons in the Order as a violation of the rule and directed the Respondent to issue a fresh Order after giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Petitioner was instructed to attend a personal hearing, and the Respondent was required to issue a new decision within three weeks of the hearing, independent of the previous Order, and communicate the outcome promptly. Case-Laws GST Tue, 25 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417702