AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1865
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Rs.23,68,800 and Rs.12,90,899 respectively. 2. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013, and is engaged in the business of export of mobile phones, desktops, laptops and other electronic items, and is duly registered with the GST framework as GSTIN 07AARCM3030A1ZV. 3. In response to the petitioner's applications for refund under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (hereinafter CGST Act) dated 20.09.2024, 21.09.2024 and 19.10.2024, Respondent No. 3 issued three show cause notices, two on 15.10.2024 and one on 04.11.2024, inter-alia proposing rejection of the refund applications on account of failure to submit shipping bills, bank statements, bank realization certificates, reconciliation of GSTR-1, GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B, etc. The petitioner was afforded an opportunity of 10 days to file a reply to the show cause notices, and a further opportunity of personal hearing on the date of choice of the petitioner was given. 4. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted three replies; two on 26.10.2024 and one on 21.11.2024 submitting the requisite documents, and further stating that the physical copies of the bills and other d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing material to the Petitioner or incorporating these allegations in the show cause notices, thereby rendering the impugned orders beyond the scope of the notices and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. Mr. Shah has further submitted that the Orders-in-Original have been passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, in complete disregard of the proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules. It is urged that in response to the show cause notices dated 15.10.2024, the petitioner had specifically requested that a personal hearing be granted on 28.10.2024. Further, in respect of the show cause notice dated 04.11.2024, a personal hearing was designated for 11.11.2024. It is submitted that neither the requested hearing dated 28.10.2024 nor the designated hearing dated 11.11.2024 was granted or conducted by the adjudicating authority. Thus, the impugned Orders-in-Original are in clear breach of the principle of Audi alteram partem. 11. Mr. Shah has further placed reliance on Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2025) 7 SCC 545 and Institute of Chartered Accounts of India v L.K Ratna & Ors. (1986) 4 SCC 537, to contend ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax evasion but of refund entitlement, and the revenue's interests remain adequately safeguarded. In such circumstances, it is submitted that retention of the amount or sustaining the impugned order cannot be justified on considerations of revenue protection alone. Submissions of respondent 16. Mr. Panwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has, at the outset, submitted that the present writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy. It is urged that the Petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 22.08.2025, has the remedy of preferring a further appeal under Section 112 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before the learned Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT). In the absence of any exceptional circumstance warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner ought to be relegated to the said statutory remedy. 17. Mr. Panwar has further submitted that the Petitioner's plea of violation of principles of natural justice on account of absence of personal hearing is misconceived. Show cause notices in Form GST RFD-08 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of jurisdiction and errors committed while exercising jurisdiction, and the legal consequences flowing therefrom. 21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nusli Neville Wadia v Ivory Properties & Ors. (2020) 6 SCC 557 has inter-alia noted that - "37. There is a difference between the existence of jurisdiction and the exercise of jurisdiction. In case jurisdiction is exercised with material irregularity or with illegality, it would also constitute jurisdictional error. However, if a court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit but in exercise of jurisdiction, a mistake has been committed though it would be a jurisdictional error, but not lack of it. It may be a jurisdictional error open for interference in appellate or revisional jurisdiction." (emphasis supplied) 22. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asma Lateef & Anr. v Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. (2024) 4 SCC 696 has stated that - "46. The essence really is that a court must not only have the jurisdiction in respect of the subject matter of dispute for the purpose of entertaining and trying the claim but also the jurisdiction to grant relief that is sought for. Once it is conceded that the jurisdiction on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her notes the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, including those made through its Chartered Accountant during the personal hearing dated 24.04.2025, and proceeds to deal with the same while affirming the findings recorded in the Orders-in-Original. The grievance, therefore, is not of absence of opportunity, but of non-acceptance of the submissions. 26. Insofar as the reliance placed by the Petitioner on Krishnadutt Awasthy v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2025) 7 SCC 545 is concerned, the principle that a defect arising from absence of hearing at the original stage may not be cured at the appellate stage is well settled. However, the applicability of the said principle is premised on a situation where it is demonstrated that no opportunity of hearing was afforded at the stage of adjudication. In the present case, the Petitioner has participated in the proceedings, furnished replies, was afforded opportunity of personal hearing at the original stage, and has also availed the opportunity of personal hearing at the appellate stage. In such circumstances, even assuming that any deficiency is sought to be pointed out in the manner of consideration of the Petitioner'....