Surface Technologies Private Limited vs. The Additional Commissioner

Held

The Court held that the 2nd respondent had passed the order impugned on 26.10.2020, which was prior to the date fixed for the petitioner's appearance before the Assistant Commissioner on 30.10.2020. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority, while dealing with the appeal, did not address this specific ground of the order being passed prematurely but instead decided the case on merits. The Court found that the primary authority had passed an order without hearing the petitioner and before the scheduled hearing date. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed. The order under challenge was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the original authority (Assistant Commissioner - 2nd respondent) to deal with it in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the order.

Facts

The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order of the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority) which affirmed the refund rejection orders of the 2nd respondent (Assistant Commissioner) for the tax period September 2019 to July 2020. The petitioner's primary contention was that the 2nd respondent passed the refund rejection order on October 26, 2020, despite issuing a notice on October 22, 2020, scheduling a personal hearing for October 30, 2020. This, the petitioner argued, violated principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that a personal hearing was granted on March 16, 2021, through video conference, and the order was passed after affording an opportunity. However, the petitioner reiterated that the refund rejection order was passed by the 2nd respondent before the scheduled personal hearing date.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the refund rejection order dated 26.10.2020, prior to the scheduled personal hearing date of 30.10.2020, is violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order on 26.10.2020, which was before the date fixed for personal hearing (30.10.2020), thereby denying them an opportunity to present their case. They also contended that the refund claim was rejected on technical grounds without proper consideration of export turnover and IGST payment for export sales. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents (1st and 2nd) contended that a personal hearing was granted on 16.03.2021, through video conference, where the petitioner's authorized representative appeared. They argued that the order was passed after giving an opportunity of hearing and therefore, not violative of natural justice. They also argued that the petitioner failed to place on record necessary documents, leading to the impugned order.