The provisions of Proviso to Rule 92(3) stipulate a right to be heard; and in the present case, this right, is not extended to the petitioner. Therefore, the order cannot be sustained and is required to be quashed on this short ground, and the case remanded for reconsideration.
Section 54 of the CGST Act — Refund – The petitioner challenged order dated 13.05.2020 in Form No.GST-RFD-06. He submitted that the impugned order is without the opportunity of being heard as contemplated under the proviso to Rule 92(3). The notice was issued on 20.04.2020 and the petitioner filed Reply on 3.5.2020 and thereafter the impugned order is made. The court observed that there is no dispute that the proviso contemplates right of hearing and this hearing has not been extended to the petitioner. It is settled law that the procedural safeguards have to be strictly adhered to, and in the absence of specific procedural safeguards, the principles of natural justice will have to be complied with.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court quashed the impugned Order dated 30.05.2020 issued in Form GST-RFD-06. The petitioner/authorized representative of the petitioner shall appear before the respondent in person on 04.11.2020, and if the fourth respondent has the facilities to hold virtual hearings, the petitioner shall also be at liberty on 04.11.2020 to make a request for such virtual hearing.