M/S. Anjani Exports vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax

M/S. ANJANI EXPORTS, FLAT NO. G3- BR GARDENS, OPP. OPS HIGH SCHOOL, MANGAMOOR ROAD, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DT., A.P. REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR CHALLA SRINIVAS RAO

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, NELLORE DIVISION - NELLORE, SPSR DISTRICT.

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAXES, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH EDUPUGALLU- VIJAYAWADA

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

UNION OF INDIA, REAP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE, 31D FLOOR, JEEVAN DEEP BUILDING, SANSAD MARG- NEW DELHI-110001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue any order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the Refund rejection Proceedings of the 1st respondent, in form GST RFD-06 dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) in considering the Refund claim of ITC on account of Export of goods without payment of Integrated tax for the Tax period April-2020 to December -2020 filed in Form RFD-01 dt.29.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) without considering the explanation submitted in letter dt.I 2.05.2022 filed on 18.05.2022 (Annexure P-3) by the petitioner in determination of the trading goods as Capital goods, and without granting opportunity of personal hearing as arbitrary, against to the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Rule 92(3) R/w sec 2(19), sub section (5) and (7) of Sec 54(3) (i) of the A.P. State Goods and Service Tax/ Central Goods and Service Tax Act 2017, (herein after referred to as 'the Act') Hence, the proceedings of the 1st respondent is liable to be set aside, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

The main contention of the petitioner, apart from the merits of the case, is that, the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity of hearing, in terms of Section 54 (3) read with Rule 92(3) of the A.P.G.S.T./C.G.S.T. Act, and also, on the ground that, the explanation submitted by the petitioner, dated 12.05.2022, filed on 18.05.2022, was also not considered.

Rule 92(3) of the C.G. & S.T. Rules – 2017, provides for an opportunity of hearing being given to the petitioner, before the application of the petitioner can be rejected. The counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent does not show any such opportunity has been given.

In view of the fact that, there is a clear breach of Rule 92(3) of the C.G. & S.T. Rules – 2017, the order of rejection, dated 24.06.2022, is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent, for consideration of the objections, raised by the petitioner, for grant of personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st respondent may pass necessary orders.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

2026