TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 359
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons involve common issues of law and facts except for the dates of the impugned orders and the amounts of refund and therefore can be conveniently disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts and prayers in respect of Writ Petition No. 5268 of 2024 being the lead petition are reproduced below. 2. The prayers in the Writ Petition No. 5268 of 2024 praying for the following substantive reliefs are as under : "(a) this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for calling for the records of the present case and after going through the legality and validity thereof be pleased to quash and set aside the Impu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. The said application was acknowledged vide Form RFD-02 on 26th June 2023. The Petitioner also furnished a complete set of physical documents on 7th July 2023 which included copy of export invoice with the FIRC copy, copy of service agreement entered into with AMHUS, sample copy of inward invoices, copy of Form GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filed for the relevant period, copies of all the declarations and undertakings and copy of Form GSTR-2B evidencing the input invoices utilized towards payment of IGST amount. On 10th July 2023 in terms of the provisions of Section 54 of the CGST/MGST Act, provisional refund of 90% refund amount was sanctioned by Respondent no. 3 vide provisional refund order in Form RFD-04, of even date. The payment order also wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to submit suitable explanation and proof evidencing that the Petitioner and AMHUS were not merely establishments of distinct persons. In response to the aforesaid, the Petitioner requested for time to submit the aforesaid details and thereafter by its letter dated 28th August 2024 made its submissions in that regard complying with the issues as raised by Respondent no. 4 submitted at the time of personal hearing held on 5th August 2024. 7. Respondent no. 4 proceeded to dismiss the appeal filed by the Petitioner vide order dated 11th October 2024 (impugned order) and sought to reject the refunds as claimed by the Petitioner The Petitioner contends that the impugned order rejecting the refunds was passed on the premise that liaison activit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted that before passing the impugned order, Respondent no. 4 had not considered the submissions made by the Petitioner by way of their reply dated 28th August 2024 and therefore the impugned order was passed in contravention of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as it did not consider the crucial aspect of the Petitioner and service recipient AMHUS being distinct and separate person. He further submitted that Respondent no. 4 in the impugned order for the very first time held that the Petitioner undertakes liaison services and hence is an intermediary, and this was never put to the Petitioner to offer a chance to the Petitioner to meet the aforesaid finding rendered by Respondent no. 4. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive India Private Limited Vs Union of India and others (Writ Petition No.6501 of 2024). 11. Per contra, Ms. Chavan, learned AGP on behalf of the State fairly submitted that the proceedings could be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a well-reasoned and speaking order and therefore the plea as made by the Petitioner could be accepted. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering that a consistent view has been taken by this Court in the orders referred to by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as enumerated above, we find substance in the contention as urged on behalf of the Petitioner. We find that no specific finding has been recorded in the impugned order before rejecting the refund appl....