https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467713 Rule 92(3) of the GST refund procedure requires the proper officer to issue notice, allow the prescribed time to reply, consider the reply, and grant an opportunity of hearing before rejecting a refund claim. Where only 7 days were given instead of 15 days and the applicant was not heard despite repeated requests, the refund rejection was procedurally invalid. A later rectification order did not cure the initial breach of mandatory procedure and natural justice. The rejection and rectification orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with the statutory refund process. en-us Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Mar 2026 19:50:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467713 Rule 92(3) of the GST refund procedure requires the proper officer to issue notice, allow the prescribed time to reply, consider the reply, and grant an opportunity of hearing before rejecting a refund claim. Where only 7 days were given instead of 15 days and the applicant was not heard despite repeated requests, the refund rejection was procedurally invalid. A later rectification order did not cure the initial breach of mandatory procedure and natural justice. The rejection and rectification orders were set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration in compliance with the statutory refund process. Case-Laws GST Wed, 26 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467713