Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017—Refund – The petitioner challenged the orders dated 29.10.2018 and dated 15.01.2020 rejecting the appeal. The petitioner claimed refund of accumulated ITC on account of export of goods under letter of undertaking in terms of the provisions of Section 54(3). The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the refund could not have been rejected by the authority without providing opportunity of hearing. The court observed that the provisions are clear and specific requiring issuance of notice in Form GST RFD-08, seeking reply and making an order thereafter. The proviso further emphasizes that the refund shall not be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard. The adjudicating authority has failed to comply with the said statutory provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Moon Technologies Ltd. v. Union of India : (2019) 18 SCC 401, pointed out that breach or defect in observing Rules of natural justice in the trial administrative body cannot generally be cured by observing natural justice at the appellate stage.

Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the orders dated 29.10.2018 to the extent of rejecting the refund of CGST & IGST and the appellate order dated 15.01.2020 and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to follow the provisions of Rule 92(3) and thereafter pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.