##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:3530-DB

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY

8th May, 2026

Writ Petition (M/B) 332 of 2026

M/s Viral Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. ------Petitioner

Versus

Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Office of the Assistant

Commissioner State Tax Sector 2 and others

-----Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Bimal Jain, Advocate, through V.C. and Ms. Azmeen Wason,

Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S.Parihar, learned Additional C.S.C., assisted by Ms. Pooja

Banga (through V.C.), learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT: (per Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

1. The petitioner has assailed the order dated

24.02.2026, passed by respondent no.1 rejecting the

refund application filed by the petitioner under Section

54 of the GST Act on the ground that it was barred by

limitation.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the order has been passed in gross violation of

Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, which specifically

provides that no application for refund shall be rejected

without giving the applicant an opportunity of being

1

2026:UHC:3530-DB

heard. The case of the petitioner is that in response to

Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2026, the petitioner

submitted his reply on 12.02.2026, and, in which

specific request was made for being provided

opportunity of hearing by virtual mode so that all the

queries of the department are clarified. However, the

department without fixing any date for hearing, has

passed the impugned order.

3. Ms. Pooja Banga, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the Revenue has placed on record the

instructions received from the Assistant Commissioner,

Sector-2, Haldwani, according to which, by Show Cause

Notice dated 06.02.2026, time was granted to the

petitioner to submit reply by 13.02.2026 and the same

date was fixed for personal hearing. The dealer

submitted his reply on 12.02.2026. Thereafter, on

24.02.2026 the impugned order has been passed. It is

also stated that the dealer has option to file an Appeal

under Section 107 of the Act, which has not been filed.

4. It is not disputed before us that in response

to Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2026, the petitioner

in his reply submitted on 12.02.2026 sought date for

personal hearing by virtual mode, however, without

considering the said request and without fixing any date

2

2026:UHC:3530-DB

for hearing, the Department has proceeded to pass the

impugned order.

5. Rule 93(3) of CGST Rules specifically provides

for grant of opportunity of hearing before any rejection

order is passed in respect of prayer for refund. Thus,

there is clear violation of the Rule 93(3) of the Rules.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.02.2026 is

quashed. The matter is remitted back to respondent

no.1 for proceeding strictly in accordance with law.

6. The writ petition stands accordingly allowed

to the extent, as above.

7. Pending application, if any, also stands

disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)

Dated: 08.05.2026

Kaushal

3

2026:UHC:3530-DB

4