HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5460/2020

M/s. Chandni Crafts, Through Its Proprietor Ghanshyam Agarwal,

Aged 51 Years S/o Bhanwarlal Agarwal, C-11/b, Marudhara

Industrial Area, 1st Phase, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Union Of India, Through Its Revenue Secretary,

Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, 128-A North

Block, New Delhi.

2.

The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service

Tax, Division-A, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Anjay Kothari

Mr. Mukesh Gurjar

Mr. Amit Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

17/01/2023

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the orders dated 29.10.2018 (Annex.2) passed by the

Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax, Division-A,

Jodhpur and order dated 15.01.2020 (Annex.3) passed by the

Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) rejecting the appeal

filed by the petitioner.

It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the petitioner

claimed refund of accumulated input tax credit on account of

export of goods under letter of undertaking in terms of the

provisions of Section 54(3) of the Central Goods & Service Tax

(2 of 6)

[CW-5460/2020]

Act, 2017 (‘CGST Act’) amounting to Rs.6,07,553/- and

Rs.8,78,605/- for the months of July, 2017 and August, 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’).

Whereafter, the refund sanction / rejection orders dated

29.10.2018 (Annex.2) were passed, inter-alia, rejecting the claims

of the petitioner.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the

Commissioner (Appeals), who by order dated 15.01.2020

(Annex.3), rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with

reference to provisions of Section 54(3) of the CGST Act and Rule

92 of the CGST Rules that the refund could not have been rejected

by the authority without providing opportunity of hearing,

inasmuch as, the provisions of Rule 92(3) envisage issuance of

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 and that no application for

refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an

opportunity of being heard. However, the said provision was

violated by the authority.

The appellate authority by its impugned order on the issue of

violation of the principles of natural justice though held in favour

of the petitioner, by observing that the natural justice has been

duly followed during the appeal proceedings and the case is heard

on the basis of merits, rejected the appeal.

(3 of 6)

[CW-5460/2020]

It is submitted that the action is contrary to the provisions of

the Rules and the orders having been passed in violation of

principle of natural justice deserves to be set-aside.

Reliance has been placed on World Home Textiles Inc v.

Additional Commissioner (Appeals) & Anr. : 2020 SCC Online Mad

25916.

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed

the submissions. It was submitted that the plea raised by the

petitioner seeking refund had no substance and therefore, both

the authorities were justified in rejecting the claim of the

petitioner for grant of refund and therefore, the order impugned

does not call for any interference.

It was submitted that as the appellate authority has

considered all the issues sought to be raised by the petitioner,

merely because the original authority did not provide opportunity

of hearing to the petiti