TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Delhi South; b) direct the respondent to grant refund of Rs. 98,54,248/- claimed under CGST, SGST & Cess for the period September, 2020; c) direct the respondent to grant interest in terms of Section 56 under CGTST/SGST; 2. Notice in this writ petition was issued on 30.09.2021, whereupon the respondent has filed a counter-affidavit in the matter, followed by a rejoinder being lodged by the petitioner. 2.1. The grievance that the petitioner articulated on the very first day of hearing i.e., 30.09.2021 was that, even though the proviso to sub-rule 3 of Rule 92 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017 [in short, 'CGST Rules'] required the respondent to grant personal hearing to the petitioner before rejecting its application for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onal hearing, the petitioner has also relied upon the audit history of the case which was generated, concededly, by the respondent. [See page 41 of the case file, exhibited as Annexure P-2 (colly).] 3.3. A perusal of the audit history does establish the veracity of the assertions made by the petitioner, which is, that it does not reveal that hearing for its refund application was fixed on 29.12.2020. Since the audit history, as noticed above, is a document generated by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent has not been able to discharge the onus which is placed on it, to demonstrate that a date had been fixed for grant of personal hearing to the petitioner. 4. That being the position, the impugned order passed in the petitioner'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....First, the amount claimed as refund was not admissible; and (ii) Second, the amount claimed as refund was not payable. 5.1. Mr Jain says that a perusal of the order of rejection i.e., the impugned order dated 30.12.2020 would show that the only ground on which the petitioner's application for refund stands rejected is that its supplier has been reported as 'risky'. 6. This apart, Mr Jain also submits that under sub-rule 3 of Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, the respondent was required to give minimum 15 days for filing a reply to the notice for application for refund, whereas the time allocated to the petitioner was only 7 days. 7. Mr Singla, on the other hand, has sought to defend the case of the respondent based on the position taken ....