2020 (11) TMI 914

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-A, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the "adjudicating authority") as mentioned below. As common issue is involved in all these three appeals therefore, I take up the same for decision simultaneously: S. No.   Appeal No   Order in Original No & due (Impugned Order)   Period of dispute   Order sanctioning rejecting refund   1 2 3 4 5 1 APL/JPR/CGST/JP/34/VI/2020/ ZP0804200051248 dated 04.04.2020 Appellant has filed refund claim under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of Rs. 21,588/- for the period February 2018 in respect of excess Tax paid in GSTR 3B return. Refund rejected Rs. 10,794/- (CGST) + Rs. 10,794/- (SGST) Total Rs. 21,58....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he refund application of the appellant without applying the correct provisions of law, is per se illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and judicial discipline. - that it is well settled law, that the administrative authority whilst passing an order whether administrative or quasi-judicial, has to comply with the principles of natural justice and no one should be condemned unheard. The same principles have also been enshrined under the CST law and therefore, it provides for opportunity of hearing, if, in case of agreement or disagreement from the allegation leveled vide show cause notice by the designated authority. The adjudicating authority has overlooked the said facts in entirety. - that the appellant was very wel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....any provisions of law in the show cause notices as well as in the impugned orders. The appellant through mail on 25.03.2020 on official mail id sought any other date for hearing as per adjudicating authority's convenience as due to corona virus disease their offices were closed and on 25.03.2020 presentation of the case was not possible. But instead of accepting their request for seeking some other date for personal hearing in the matter, the adjudicating authority has passed the Orders-in-Original all dated 04.04.2020 rejecting the refund claims without discussing any relevant provisions of law/rules. Thus, the appellant did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing in the matter and without considering their submission the adjudic....