JUDGMENT :

1. This order will dispose of bunch of writ petitions bearing OWP Nos. 2509 to 2513 of 2018 and 2202 to 2207 of 2019, as the common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. Facts have been taken from OWP No. 2509/2018.

3. The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, has filed the present petition challenging order dated 07.08.2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Jammu whereby the claim of the petitioner for refund of the tax, in terms of Scheme of Budgetary Support (for short 'the Scheme') has been partially rejected. Refund of Rs. 43,84,140/- was claimed, however, claim to the extent of Rs. 25,36,705/- was rejected, though balance was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of the Scheme under the Goods and Service Tax Regime, the petitioner applied for refund of the amount of tax deposited. As per the scheme, the petitioner had done the needful, however, vide order impugned, in an arbitrary manner the respondent No. 2 has partially rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason and also without affording any opportunity of hearing. It was submitted that in case the respondent No. 2 had granted opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, it could have clarified the doubts and justified its claim for refund of the amount in totality. But the intention of respondent No. 2, was somehow the other.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there is alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner against the order impugned in the writ petition. The petitioner has not availed of the same. He submitted that the order in original has been passed by respondent No. 2, against which petitioner can avail remedy of appeal, as per the provisions of Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'CGST Act'). The petitioner has unnecessarily approached this Court.

6. In response to the argument raised regarding grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due procedure as provided under the Scheme has been followed. The same does not provide for any opportunity of hearing. He further submitted that claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected partially. The order impugned has been passed strictly as per the Scheme. Refund of whatever amount the petitioner was entitled to, the same was awarded. The matters are not to be sent back to the authority for grant of opportunity of hearing, if the result even after affording that opportunity remains the same. It is such a case. If examined on merits as per the Scheme correct amount of refund has been determined in terms of the entitlement of the petitioner who has five units in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Four out of those are manufacturing and one is the trading unit. Even in the petition no case has been made out on the basis of which part of the order, which is adverse to the petitioner, can be set aside.

7. As regards plea of alternative remedy raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by respondent No. 2 is not under the provisions of CGST Act, rather it is in terms of the Scheme as notified on 05.10.2017, by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion). The Scheme has not been notified by the Finance Department. It is complete code in itself, which does not provide any remedy of appeal. He even referred to the Circular No. 1068/1/2019-CX : dated 10.01.2019, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, which clarified that there is no provision of appeal under the Scheme. Hence, the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable.

8. It was further argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that what is sought to be contended by the respondents on merits is not even part of the order. In fact, these complications are there only for a short period