M/S Sain Dass Overseas vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sain Das Overseas, filed an application for a GST refund under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This application was rejected by the revenue through an order dated 03.07.2020. The petitioner then filed a statutory appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act. However, this appeal was rejected on the ground of delay by a communication dated 06.02.2026, which is the subject of the present writ petition. The petitioner contends that the rejection of their appeal was not accompanied by a reasoned order and that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted.

Held

The Court held that the communication dated 06.02.2026, rejecting the petitioner's statutory appeal on the ground of delay, was not a speaking or reasoned order. The Court noted that Section 107(8) of the Act mandates that the Appellate Authority shall give an opportunity to the appellant of being heard, and Section 107(12) requires the Appellate Authority to formulate points of determination and decide them through a reasoned order. The Court found that the respondent-Department had adopted a casual approach in dealing with the petitioner's statutory appeal. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned communication dated 06.02.2026 was set aside. The Appellate Authority was granted liberty to pass a fresh order on the petitioner's appeal filed to challenge the rejection of its refund claim, in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the rejection of the petitioner's statutory appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on the ground of delay, without a speaking or reasoned order, is valid, particularly when Section 107(8) mandates an opportunity of being heard and Section 107(12) requires a reasoned determination? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the communication rejecting their appeal was not a reasoned order as required by Section 107(12) of the Act. They further contended that no opportunity of personal hearing was granted, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 107(8) of the Act. The rejection was merely a communication of delay, without addressing the merits or providing any justification. Revenue's arguments: The revenue's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. However, the rejection of the appeal was communicated on the ground of delay.