TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been rejected by the respondent no. 2. As the tribunal envisaged in the GST Act has not been constituted, the petitioner has approached this court as the petitioner cannot be left remediless. That facts in brief are that the petitioner claims to be a registered supplier under the GST Act and claims to have done job work on cloth and other suppliers for the period April, 2018 to July, 2018. The petitioner submits that on account of inward supply of inverted rated inputs the petitioner was entitled to refund. As such, he filed an application for refund in Form RFD-01 claiming a refund of Rs. 13,68,758/- under inverted duty structure on the portal for the period April 2018 to July 2018. The said application was allotted a number and was dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s stated above. .You are hereby directed to furnish a reply to this notice within fifteen days from the date of service of this notice. .You are also directed to appear before the undersigned on 26/03/2020 3:41 PM If you fail to furnish a reply within the stipulated date or fail to appear for personal hearing on the appointed date and time the case will be decided ex parte on the basis of available records and on merits. Remark turnover of inverted rated supply is 36346489/-, whereas as per rfd 01, is 110701018/- which is more pls clarify the same Date : 19/03/2020 3:44 PM Signature (DSC) Place : DIVISION IV GHAZIABAD Name of Proper HARSH ARDHAN RAI Designation Ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner claims that on 19.06.2020 the respondent no. 2 handed over a copy of the order passed in the case of the petitioner rejecting the refund claim (Annexure No. 7). However, perusal thereof does not show any reason for order being passed by the respondent no. 2 rejecting the refund claim of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 07.04.2020 (made available on 19.06.2020) by filing an appeal before respondent no. 1, which was dismissed on 14.09.2020 (Annexure No. 9). The appellate order, rejecting the appeal, was passed on the ground that the petitioner had not given any reply to the show cause notice and further it records that even at the appellate stage the appellant did not submit any document to justify the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rness is obviously to be manifested by the language in which charges are couched and conveyed to the person proceeded against. In the instant case from the underlined portion of the show cause notice it is clear that the third respondent has demonstrated a totally close mind at the stage of show cause notice itself. Such a close mind is inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43 which is set out below. The aforesaid rule has been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 33 of The Marine Products Export development Authority Act, 1972 and as such that Rule is statutory in nature." On the strength of the said judgment, counsel for the petitioner argues that as the show cause notice was silent, the petitioner could not have been....