Order date: 17 January 2023

Parities: M/s Chandni Crafts, Through Its Proprietor Ghanshyam Agarwal vs Union Of India, Through Its Revenue Secretary.

Facts 

• The Petitioner, M/s Chandni Crafts, through Its Proprietor Ghanshyam Agarwal claimed refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of export of goods under letter of undertaking in terms of the provision of Section 4(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017
• The Assistant Commissioner issued provisional refund order dated 26.09.2018, partially sanctioning refund claims to the petitioner and rejecting the refund claim for the Integrated Goods & Service Tax (‘IGST’) and Central Goods & Service Tax (‘CGST’)
• The refund sanction / rejection orders dated 29.10.2018 were passed, inter-alia, rejecting the claims of the petitioner, with granting opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioner filed appeal before the commissioner(appeals), who by order dated 15.01.2020 rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.

Issue 

• Whether the natural justice had been followed by the adjudication authority?

Order

• The Tribunal observed that proviso to Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules further emphasizes that the refund shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.  The provisions are mandatory and apparently, the adjudicating authority has failed to comply with the said statutory provision.
• The principle 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 sustain.
• The previous orders rejecting the refund of CGST and IGST are quashed and set aside.
• The writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed.