https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763349 The HC held that the petitioner's refund application was rejected without issuing the mandatory deficiency memo under GST RFD-03, violating natural justice principles. However, the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice within the stipulated time and did not raise contentions timely, thus bearing responsibility for the impugned order. The court found no fault with the respondents for passing the order in the absence of any response. The impugned order dated 30 April 2024 was set aside, and the refund application restored, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the second respondent within four weeks. en-us Sat, 14 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2025 14:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763349 The HC held that the petitioner's refund application was rejected without issuing the mandatory deficiency memo under GST RFD-03, violating natural justice principles. However, the petitioner failed to respond to the show cause notice within the stipulated time and did not raise contentions timely, thus bearing responsibility for the impugned order. The court found no fault with the respondents for passing the order in the absence of any response. The impugned order dated 30 April 2024 was set aside, and the refund application restored, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the second respondent within four weeks. Case-Laws GST Sat, 14 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763349