2023 (7) TMI 643

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....riate writ, direction or order calling for the papers and proceedings of the Rejection Order No. D2710200270354 dated 20.10.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State tax and after examining legality, validity & propriety thereof the said order be quashed & set aside; (b) For a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction ordering the Respondents not to give effect to the Impugned Order or act upon or in pursuance of the same." 2. Brief facts are as under:- (i) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of 'placement and supply service of personnel' to its customers. On 30th March 2020, the Petitioner made an application for refund of IGST, CGST, SGST for period April 2018 to March 2019, aggregating to R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Respondents. 4. The Petitioner has contended that Respondent No. 2 was not justified in rejecting the Petitioner's refund application without giving adequate opportunity of a hearing. Moreso, since on account of pandemic, there was a disruption in working of the Petitioner's office. The Petitioner also contended that second request for extension of time vide letter dated 15th October 2020, having not been rejected, Respondent No. 2 was not justified in rejecting the refund application that too without hearing the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, contended that on account of breach of natural justice, the impugned order rejecting the refund application be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of Respondent No. 2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt No. 2, in these circumstances, ought to have given a reasonable time for the Petitioner to file its reply, however, Respondent No. 2 gave only three days to file the reply, which cannot be termed on the facts of the present case any reasonable time or an adequate opportunity of a hearing. Moreover, the Petitioner once again on 15th October 2020, objected to Respondents giving only three days time and reiterated its request for atleast two weeks on account of disruption due to pandemic. This application of the Petitioner has not been rejected by Respondent No. 2 and, therefore, Respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have given adequate opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to reply to the show cause notice. 7. Therefore, in our view, ce....