M/S H.M. Pipes PVT. LTD. vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the order rejecting the refund claim could not be assailed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, as there was no statutory mandate requiring the respondents to afford a personal hearing before passing an order on an application for refund. The Court also noted that an alternative remedy of appeal exists. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering that the writ petition was filed before the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal, the Court directed that if the petitioner prefers an appeal within 60 days from the date of the order, the appeal shall be heard on merits without any objection with regard to limitation. The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to prefer a statutory appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s H.m. Pipes Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court challenging an order rejecting its claim for a GST refund. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The respondents, Union of India and the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, along with the State of Rajasthan, were arrayed as respondents. The High Court noted that the petitioner had submitted a refund application which was considered and an order was passed. The Court observed that there was no statutory mandate requiring a personal hearing before passing an order on a refund application.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order rejecting the petitioner's GST refund claim is liable to be set aside on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as contended by the respondents? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the impugned order rejecting its refund claim was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because no personal hearing was granted. The petitioner relied on the general principles of natural justice. Respondents' Argument: The respondents argued that there is no statutory requirement for a personal hearing before passing an order on a refund application. They also contended that an alternative remedy of appeal exists, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained.