These three appeals have been filed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 by M/s T & D Electricals, S-1/8, RIICO Shopping Complex, Road No. I, VKI Area, Jaipur (hereinafter also referred to as “the appellant”) against the Orders-in-original (hereinafter as “the impugned orders”) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods & Service Tax Division-A, Jaipur (hereinafter called as the “adjudicating authority”) as mentioned below. As common issue is involved in all these three appeals therefore, I take up the same for decision simultaneously:

2.  BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

2.1 The appellant having GSTIN No.08AADFT8381QIZ9 engaged in providing Works Contract Service, has filed refund claims under Section 54 of CGST Act, 2017 in respect of excess Tax paid in GSTR-3B return for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-I of the above Table in column No.(4) & (5).

2.2 The adjudicating authority has issued a show cause notices all dated 18.03.2020. Further, the adjudicating authority vide impugned Orders in Original all dated 04.04.2020 has rejected the refund claims for the period and amount mentioned at above in Para-1 in column No.(4) and (5) filed by the appellant.

3. Being aggrieved with the impugned orders all dated 04.04.2020, the appellant has filed the appeals on the following grounds which are summarized as under:-

– that the order passed by the adjudicating authority, thereby dismissing the refund application of the appellant without applying the correct provisions of law, is per se illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and judicial discipline.

– that it is well settled law, that the administrative authority whilst passing an order whether administrative or quasi-judicial, has to comply with the principles of natural justice and no one should be condemned unheard. The same principles have also been enshrined under the CST law and therefore, it provides for opportunity of hearing, if, in case of agreement or disagreement from the allegation leveled vide show cause notice by the designated authority. The adjudicating authority has overlooked the said facts in entirety.

– that the appellant was very well eligible for the refund claims as per guidelines issued by the Government, as much as, the show cause notice were issued without mentioning any reason of issuing the same.

– that the personal hearing afforded by the adjudicating authority to appear on 25.03.2020 was the first chance to appear and present such case and even after seeking adjournment, order issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court by taking suomoto cognizance the Ld. adjudicating authority entirely overlooked the position of law and passed the impugned order rejecting the refund claim.

4. Personal Hearing in the case was held on 15.10.2020 through video conference, wherein, Shri Ravi Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the appellant, appeared for personal hearing through video conference and explained the case in detail and reiterated the submission already made in the grounds of appeal and requested to decide the case at the earliest.

5.  I have carefully gone through the case records and submission made in the appeal memorandum as well as oral submission made at the time of personal hearing. I find that the adjudicating authority has rejected the refund claims and passed the impugned orders in original all dated 04.04.2020 without discussing any provisions of law/rules.

6.  The appellant has mainly contested in their appeal memo that the adjudicating authority has passed the impugned orders in original without granting sufficient opportunity of personal hearing in the matter and also without discussing any provisions of law in the show cause notices as well as in the impugned orders. The appellant through mail on 25.03.2020 on official mail id sought any other date for hearing as per adjudicating authority’s convenience as due to corona virus disease their offices were closed and on 25.03.2020 presentation of the case was not possible. But instead of accepting their request for seeking some other date for personal hearing in the matter, the adjudicating authority has passed the Orders-in-Original all dated 04.04.2020 rejecting the refund claims without discussing any relevant provisions of law/rules. Thus, the appellant did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing in the matter and without considering their submission the adjudicating authority has passed the orders.

7.  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 Lis allowed:

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

8.  Further, I find that the adjudicating authority while rejecting the refund claims of the appellant neither considered their first request for seeking of some other date as per adjudicating authority’s convenience nor discussed any relevant provisions of law/rules for rejection of their refund claims. I also find that non-passing of speaking order indeed amount to denial of natural justice. Before passing of orders atleast their request for seeking of some other date for personal hearing in the matter should have been considered and at least speaking order should have been passed by giving proper opportunity of personal hearing in the matter to the appellant and detailing factors leading to rejection of refund claims. Such orders are 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 by the adjudicating authority as per the provisions and procedure as prescribed under CGST Act, 2017 and CGST Rules as stated above.

9.  Accordingly, the appeals are disposed off in the above manner.