Richie Rich Exim Solutions VS Commissioner Of CGST

The substantive prayers in the writ petition include a request to quash and set aside the refund rejection order dated 30.12.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central GST, Delhi South, a direction to the respondent to grant a refund of Rs. 98,54,248/- claimed under CGST, SGST, and Cess for September 2020, and a direction to grant interest in terms of Section 56 under CGTST/SGST. Notice in the writ petition was issued on 30.09.2021, followed by the respondent filing a counter-affidavit and the petitioner filing a rejoinder. The petitioner initially expressed a grievance on 30.09.2021, stating that the respondent failed to comply with the requirement to grant a personal hearing before rejecting the refund application as per Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017. On that date, Mr. Aditya Singla, representing the respondent, screen-shared details from the GST portal indicating that a hearing was scheduled for 29.12.2020 at 3:00 PM but the petitioner did not attend. The respondent maintained this stance in the counter-affidavit. The petitioner, in the rejoinder, claimed that the only accessible site for case information was services.gst.gov.in and that the webpage shown by the respondent was from gstprod.cbec.gov.in/cbec.aces.gst.ui, which the petitioner could not view. The petitioner also referred to the audit history, generated by the respondent, which did not show a scheduled hearing on 29.12.2020, supporting the petitioner’s claim that no hearing date was fixed. The audit history, being a document from the respondent, indicated that the respondent failed to prove that a hearing date had been set.

The writ petition seeks the following reliefs: firstly, to quash and set aside the Assistant Commissioner Central GST, Delhi South’s rejection order dated 30.12.2020; secondly, to direct the respondent to grant a refund of Rs.98,54,248/- claimed under CGST, SGST & Cess for September 2020; and thirdly, to direct the respondent to grant interest as per Section 56 under CGST/SGST. Notice for this petition was issued on 30.09.2021, prompting the respondent to file a counter-affidavit and the petitioner to file a rejoinder. The petitioner’s primary contention is that their right to a personal hearing before the rejection of their refund application, as mandated by the proviso to sub-rule 3 of Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, was not honored. During the court proceedings on 30.09.2021, the respondent presented evidence that a hearing had been scheduled for 29.12.2020, which the petitioner allegedly missed. However, the petitioner disputes this claim, asserting that the relevant information they accessed contradicts the respondent’s records. The petitioner contends that the audit history provided by the respondent does not confirm the scheduled hearing. Consequently, the petitioner argues that the rejection of their refund application is flawed under Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, which requires a reasonable opportunity for a hearing before rejection.

so far, to demonstrate that a personal hearing was properly scheduled and communicated to the petitioner as required by Rule 92 of the CGST Rules. The petitioner contends that despite the respondent’s claim of a scheduled hearing on December 29, 2020, the audit history of the case does not corroborate this. The petitioner relies on the audit trail provided by the respondent itself, which does not indicate any such scheduled hearing. Consequently, the petitioner argues that the rejection of their refund application, based solely on their supplier’s classification as ‘risky’, without proper adherence to procedural requirements, is unjustified.

The writ petition seeks to quash and set aside the refund rejection order dated 30.12.2020 by the Assistant Commissioner Central GST, Delhi South, and directs the respondent to grant a refund of Rs.98,54,248/- under CGST, SGST & Cess for September 2020, along with interest as per Section 56 of CGST/SGST. Notice was issued on 30.09.2021, prompting the respondent to file a counter-affidavit, followed by a rejoinder from the petitioner. The petitioner’s primary grievance is the alleged failure to grant a personal hearing before rejecting the refund application, contrary to CGST Rules. The respondent counters that a hearing was scheduled for 29.12.2020, but the petitioner did not attend, supported by portal screenshots. The petitioner disputes this, citing conflicting web sources and audit history. The court is urged to invalidate the rejection order due to procedural breaches and insufficient notice time for response, emphasizing a breach of natural justice principles.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: