The adjudicating authority did not discuss any provisions of law/rules and method on the issue of time barred on which basis the refund claims become time barred. Therefore, case is remand back to the adjudicating authority for decide the case afresh by following the principle of natural justice and for passing the speaking order in view of submission of appellant.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant filed refund application under Section 54 in respect of inadvertently paid IGST instead of CGST and SGST. Further, the appellant has also filed refund claim of excess paid CGST during the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 in GSTR-3B return. The adjudicating authority has issued SCNs in Form GST-RFD-08, dated 7-4-2020 and 8-4-2020 respectively and thereafter vide impugned Orders-in-Original all dated 23-4-2020 has rejected the refund claims. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed these appeals on the ground that the impugned orders have rejected the refund on the only ground that applications of refund are time barred. The appellant kept trying from Dec., 2019 to Mar., 2020 to file application but could not file the application under the correct category due to glitch in GSTN portal issue. The authority observed that the adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither considered their defence submission/reply nor first request for seeking adjournment of personal hearing due to COVID-19 lockdown. The adjudicating authority did not discuss any provisions of law/rules and method on the issue of time barred on which basis the refund claims become time barred. Thus, passing of non-speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for deciding the case afresh by following the principle of natural justice and for passing the speaking order in view of submission of appellant.
The adjudicating authority did not discuss any provisions of law/rules and method on the issue of time barred on which basis the refund claims become time barred. Therefore, case is remand back to the adjudicating authority for decide the case afresh by following the principle of natural justice and for passing the speaking order in view of submission of appellant.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund — The appellant filed refund application under Section 54 in respect of inadvertently paid IGST instead of CGST and SGST. Further, the appellant has also filed refund claim of excess paid CGST during the period July, 2017 to March, 2018 in GSTR-3B return. The adjudicating authority has issued SCNs in Form GST-RFD-08, dated 7-4-2020 and 8-4-2020 respectively and thereafter vide impugned Orders-in-Original all dated 23-4-2020 has rejected the refund claims. Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed these appeals on the ground that the impugned orders have rejected the refund on the only ground that applications of refund are time barred. The appellant kept trying from Dec., 2019 to Mar., 2020 to file application but could not file the application under the correct category due to glitch in GSTN portal issue. The authority observed that the adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither considered their defence submission/reply nor first request for seeking adjournment of personal hearing due to COVID-19 lockdown. The adjudicating authority did not discuss any provisions of law/rules and method on the issue of time barred on which basis the refund claims become time barred. Thus, passing of non-speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice.
Held that:- The Hon’ble authority remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for deciding the case afresh by following the principle of natural justice and for passing the speaking order in view of submission of appellant.