TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1677
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondents, their servants, subordinates and agents: i. To withdraw the Impugned Rejection Order in FORM GST RFD-06 bearing Sr.No.314/2025 dated 20.12.2025 (Exhibit I) issued by Respondent No. 2 pertaining to Refund Application No. AA271025058709Z dated 14.10.2025. ii. To consider the Petitioner's Preliminary Reply dated 19.12.2025 and to provide a hearing opportunity to the Petitioner as mandated under the proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules before passing of any order." 2. The facts lie in narrow compass: The petitioner filed refund application dated 14 October 2025 seeking refund of Rs. 23,67,56,258/- for the period September 2025, being accumulated ITC on export of goods and services without payment of tax. Such application was duly acknowledged on 17 October 2025 in form GST RFD-02. On 13 November 2025, the petitioner by an e-mail addressed to respondent Nos. 2 and 4, requested for release of the refund claim. In response to the said e-mail, respondent No. 4 informed the petitioner by an e-mail dated 3 December 2025 that the petitioner's e-mail was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are given a complete go-by in passing the impugned order, is his contention. In support of his contention, Dr. Kantawala has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Haren Textiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of State Tax (2024) 24 Centax 209 (Bom) wherein considering the mandate of the such Rule, the Court has set aside a similar order and directed fresh inquiry. Also similar view was taken by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court in the case Carbon Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (T) No.3532 of 2025 decided on 26 November 2025. Further also referring to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, Dr. Kantawala submits that it ought not to be that the concerned officer of the Revenue does not adhere to the requirement of law that is to comply with the said Rule and take an arbitrary approach in passing such order as in the present case. It is his submission that this has caused serious prejudice to the assessee but also has generated litigation which, according to him, is sheer waste of valuable time of the Court. In this context, he has placed reliance on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in TVL. C. Ragupathi C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o file a reply online under RFD 09. Reply by mail cannot be treated as compliance of filing a reply through the portal in RFD 09 when the petitioner has never requested for a hard copy or mail copy of the SCN and has accepted the SCN issued in RFD-08 online as a valid SCN. If that be the case, the reply should have been filed online through the RFD -09 form As As no such reply was filed, it was presumed that the petitioner is not interested in filing a reply and does not need a Personal Hearing. Therefore, the petitioner's allegation that principles of natural justice have been violated is wholly misconceived, unfounded and devoid of any legal merit. .. ... ... .... .. . 10. The show cause notice issued in Form RFD-08 dated 12.12.2025 categorically and unambiguously granted a period of seven days for submission of the reply. The petitioner failed to submit any reply electronically through the common portal by 19.12.2025 or at any time thereafter. As no reply appeared on the common portal, and no extension for submission of reply was sought, the proper officer had reasonable and justified grounds to conclude that the petitioner had nothing to say in the matter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the said order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed: Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard." 9. The mandate of Rule 92(3) is thus clear, which necessarily applied in the facts of the petitioner's case. However, it is surprising to note as to how and on what basis respondent No. 2 could issue a show cause notice in question and provide seven days time to file reply to the show cause notice as clearly seen from the last paragraph of the show cause notice, where respondent No. 2 states "The applicants are directed to submit the reply to this Show Cause Notice within seven days failing which the refund will be disposed of as proposed. "Thus, the officer has taken on himself to sideline the Rule to exercise discretion contrary to the requirement of the rule, by substituting the period of filing reply from fifteen days to seven days. Thus, the notice itself to that effect was illegal and contrary to the provisions of Rule 92(3)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therein. The observations as made by the Court in such order are required to be noted which read thus:- "3. The Petitioner applied for refund to the Respondents. By orders at Exhibit-C collectively (pages 129 in 190) and Exhibit-D collectively (pages 191 to 283) refunds for some periods were granted and for others, rejected. 4. Aggrieved by the portion of the above impugned oilers rejecting the refunds, the Petitioner has instituted this petition. The Petitioner's basic grievance relates to non-compliance with the provisions of Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. Rule 92(3) reads as follows: 92. Order sanctioning refund.- (3) Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecti....