These Two appeals have been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s Social Scape Tech LLP, E-735, Nakul Path, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur-302015 (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Orders-in-Original (hereinafter as “the impugned orders”) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-H, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the “adjudicating authority”) as  mentioned below. As common issue is involved in all these Two appeals therefore, I take up the same for decision simultaneously:

2.  Brief facts of the Case:

2.1  The appellant having GSTIN No.08ADIFS6458B1ZW has filed refund claims under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 of ₹ 20,892/- for the period August to September- 2017 in respect of ITC accumulated on account of export of services with payment of Tax and also filed refund claim of ₹ 3,35,915/- (₹ 3,21,967/-IGST+ ₹ 6974/- CGST+ ₹ 6974/- SGST) for the period April-2018 to March-2019 in respect of ITC accumulated on account of export of goods/services without payment of Tax.

2.2  On examination of refund claim for the period and amount mentioned at column No.(4) & (5) filed by the appellant, it was observed by the adjudicating authority that the refund claim has been received on portal but no documents has been received physically. Therefore, refund claim found inadmissible in terms of Para 7 of Circular No. 79/53/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018.

3.  Being aggrieved with the impugned orders, the appellant has filed these appeals on the following grounds which may be summarized as under:-

• that the rejection of refund application without issue of show cause notice and deficiency memo in GST RFD-03 under CGST Act, 2017 & CGST Rules, 2017 and is against the provision of the GST Law and principle of natural justice.
• that the refund rejection order dated 07.11.2019 made by the proper officer of Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur is wrong on facts and is bad in law and has been made arbitrarily without considering the facts of the case and the order has been made without any justifiable basis.
• that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the refund application should not reject without giving opportunity of being heard. Thus the order is wrong, unjustified, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice.

4.  Personal hearing in both these cases was held on 29.09.2020 at 11.30 AM, by Shri Arpit Mittal, Chartered Accountant, M/s A O Mittal & Associates, A-459, First Floor, Adarsh Path, Vidyut Nagar, Jaipur through video conference, wherein, he explained the case in detail and reiterated the grounds already made in their appeal memo and requested to decide the case at the earliest.

5.  I have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made in the appeal memorandum as well as written submission submitted at the time of personal hearing. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claim on the ground that the appellant has submitted their refund claim on portal but no relevant documents has been provided physically thus refund claim found inadmissible in terms of Para 7 of Circular No.79/53/2018-GST dated 31.12.2018 issued by the CBIC.

6.  Further, I find that the appellant has mainly contested in their appeal memo that adjudicating authority had not issued any deficiency memo in Form RFD-03 and show cause notice in the Form of RFD-08. Also, no opportunity of being heard has been given.

7.  As per sub rule (3) of Rule 90 of the CGST Rules, 2017- Where any deficiencies are noticed, the proper officer shall communicate the deficiencies to the applicant in FORM GST RFD-03 through the common portal electronically, requiring him to file a fresh refund application after rectification of such deficiencies.

8.  Further, as per first proviso to sub rule (3) of Rule 92 of CGST Rule,2017- 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.

9.  I find that the adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither given any show cause notice in the FORM RFD-08 nor issued any deficiency memo in the FORM RFD-03 to the appellant and also not granted any opportunity of personal hearing. I also find that non-passing of speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Show Cause Notice should have been issued and at least speaking order should have been passed by giving proper opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and detailing factors leading to rejection of refund claim. Such order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and accordingly set aside. The appellant is directed to submit all relevant documents to the adjudicating authority and the claims will be processed as per the provisions and procedure as per prescribed under CSGT Act, 2017 and CCST Rules as stated above.

10. Accordingly, both these appeals are disposed off in the above manner