This appeal has been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Ganpati Heritage, G-189-90 Badharna Industrial Area, Near Road No. 14, VKI Area, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Order in Original No. JPR/Div-A/FinaI/434 dated 08.07.2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-A, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the Adjudicating Authority”).

Brief Facts of the case

2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No.08ALHPK0268J1ZY has filed application under section 54(3) of the CGST Act,2017 for refund of ₹ 11,23,797/-  for the period from April-2018 to March-2019 on account of accumulation of ITC on Export of Goods and Service without payment of IGST. Out of which an amount of ₹ 1,30,632/-(CGST   ₹ 65,316/- and SGST ₹ 65,316/-) has been rejected by the adjudicating authority.

3.1 The appellant being aggrieved with the impugned order has filed this appeal on the various grounds which may be summarized as under:-

• that because the impugned non- speaking order is pervasive and bad in the eye of law. It was passed in violation of principal of natural justice, without appreciating documents available on record and ignoring provisions of GST law
• that because as per provisions of GST law and documents available on record your honor may appreciate that the impugned refund claim is admissible to the appellant and rejection of refund claim is arbitrary and unjustified.
• that Because the refund claim to the tune of ₹ 1,30,632/- was rejected without issuing a notice in Form GST RFD-08 which is mandatory condition as per law.
• that because as per Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, “where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM CST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the said order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed:

Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.”

• that because in the present matter neither a show cause notice is issued nor hearing is afforded to the appellant and thereby principal of natural justice is completely violated.
• that because refund claim of ₹ 130,632/- is rejected without giving any reason, without issuing notice and without affording opportunity of hearing hence your honor may appreciate that refund claim of ₹ 130,632/- deserves to be allowed.

4.  Personal hearing in the matter was held on 13.08.2020. Shri Ravi Gupta, Chartered Accountant on behalf of the appellant appeared for personal hearing and reiterated the submission already made in their ground of appeal and requested to decide the case at the earliest.

5.  I have carefully gone through the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant in the appeal memorandum as well as at the time of personal hearing. I find that the appellant has contested mainly on the issue that the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim without issuing a Show Cause Notice in Form GST RFD-08 and without granting any opportunity of personal hearing, which is against the spirit of principle of  natural justice.

6.  AS per Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, “where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09 within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the said order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund is allowed:

Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.

7.  I find that in the instant case neither a show cause notice was issued nor opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellant before passing the order and also no reason for rejection was given. Passing of such non speaking order is against the principle of natural justice. Adjudicating Authority should have passed the speaking order by granting proper opportunity of personal hearing and detailing the factor leading to rejection of refund claim. I, therefore hold that the case of rejection shall be reconsidered by the adjudicating authority and a proper speaking order should be passed by following the principle of natural justice as provided under Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017.

8.  The appeal is disposed off in above manner.