The entire proceedings initiated by the respondent in rejecting the refund claim since is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and as also in clear breach of statutory requirement and can be termed as an arbitrary act on the part of the authority, the same deserves interference by quashing and setting aside the orders which are impugned in this petition.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund – The petitioner sought quashing the SCN dated 04.03.2020 and 11.03.2020 on the ground that they have been issued without assignment of any reasons and challenged the orders dated 23.03.2020 passed without availing any opportunity of PH. The petitioner submitted that the finished goods manufactured by the petitioner are exported as cleared to the SEZ and such supplies are reckoned as ‘Zero Rated’ supply in terms of Section 16 of the IGST Act. The petitioner filed two separate applications for refund of unutilized compensation cess under Section 54. The respondent submitted that the refund claim had been processed and since it did not include the value of the steel supply in the total adjusted turnover, two notices dated 11.03.2020 and 04.03.2020 were issued. The petitioner, in absence of any reasons for rejection, conveyed them that it was not possible to reply to the show cause notice or to appear for the personal hearing and the refund claim had been rejected on 23.03.2020. The court observed that the respondent instead of making any attempt to correct the error of giving the notice with reasons, they passed the orders of rejection. The court further observed that the show cause notice not only lacks the clarity but the order impugned is also in clear violation of the settled cannon of law. The order of rejection also is a non-speaking order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders dated 23.03.2020.
The entire proceedings initiated by the respondent in rejecting the refund claim since is in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and as also in clear breach of statutory requirement and can be termed as an arbitrary act on the part of the authority, the same deserves interference by quashing and setting aside the orders which are impugned in this petition.
Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Refund – The petitioner sought quashing the SCN dated 04.03.2020 and 11.03.2020 on the ground that they have been issued without assignment of any reasons and challenged the orders dated 23.03.2020 passed without availing any opportunity of PH. The petitioner submitted that the finished goods manufactured by the petitioner are exported as cleared to the SEZ and such supplies are reckoned as ‘Zero Rated’ supply in terms of Section 16 of the IGST Act. The petitioner filed two separate applications for refund of unutilized compensation cess under Section 54. The respondent submitted that the refund claim had been processed and since it did not include the value of the steel supply in the total adjusted turnover, two notices dated 11.03.2020 and 04.03.2020 were issued. The petitioner, in absence of any reasons for rejection, conveyed them that it was not possible to reply to the show cause notice or to appear for the personal hearing and the refund claim had been rejected on 23.03.2020. The court observed that the respondent instead of making any attempt to correct the error of giving the notice with reasons, they passed the orders of rejection. The court further observed that the show cause notice not only lacks the clarity but the order impugned is also in clear violation of the settled cannon of law. The order of rejection also is a non-speaking order.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the orders dated 23.03.2020.