The prescribed procedure is that the Adjudicating Autority shall issue notice in Form GST RFD-08 requiring the applicant to furnish a reply in Form GST RFD-09 and after considering the reply, order can be made in Form GST RFD-06.

No application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.

Facts and Timelines of the case:

Refund Application was filed for the months of July, 2017 and August, 2017.

29-Oct-2018: The Assistant Commissioner issued provisional refund order partially sanctioning refund claims to the petitioner and rejecting the refund claim for IGST. This Order was passed without providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Against this Rejection Assessee preferred Appeal.

15-Jan-20202: Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the Appeal after providing opportunity of being heard. Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that he has provided opportunity of being heard and that’s sufficient Opportunity of being heard if not provided by the Adjudicating Autority it could be later provided by the Appellate Authority and that’s sufficient. Aggrieved by this rejection Order Petitioner approached High Court.

High Court held:
Wherein admittedly the principles of natural justice have been violated by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority only on account of the fact that it had provided opportunity of hearing, did not interfere with the order of the adjudicating authority, both the orders cannot be sustained. Therefore, both orders are quashed and matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Autority.

In my View:
There are various judgements which clearly specifies that a deficiency in order of Adjudicating Autority wrt Opportunity of being heard cannot be rectified by providing subsequent hearing by the Appellate Authority. Madras High Court in World Home Textiles Inc vs Additional Commissioner (Appeals) : 2020 SCC Online Mad 25916 has held that where hearing is mandatory and it was not provided by the Adjudicating Autority and Appellate Authority provided the same and passed order we consider this as total non-application of mind by both authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 63 Moon Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India : (2019) 18 SCC 401, pointed out that breach or defect in observing Rules of natural justice in the trial.

 Download PDF:

Chandni Crafts

For Reference Visit:

Rajasthan High Court