Global Tabbac Legacy vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Sec. Ministry Of Finance, Dept. Of Revenue And Ors

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated December 20, 2025, was passed ex-parte and without considering the Petitioner's reply dated December 15/19, 2025, to the show cause notice dated December 12, 2025. Consequently, the Petitioner was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of presenting its case, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court found this situation similar to the facts in the case of Golden Cryo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors., where a coordinate bench had set aside a similar refund rejection order. The reasoning was that a fair hearing is a fundamental aspect of administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. The second Respondent was directed to issue a fresh notice to the Petitioner, grant an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order considering the Petitioner's reply. The Court explicitly stated it had not delved into the merits of the rival contentions. The ratio is that an order passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, especially when a reply has been filed, is unsustainable in law.

Facts

The Petitioner, Global Tabbac Legacy, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 20, 2025, passed by the second Respondent. This order rejected the Petitioner's refund application dated October 14, 2025, and was passed under Rules 92(1), 92(3), 92(4), 92(5), and 96(7) of the CGST Rules, 2017, and Sections 73/74 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Petitioner contended that the impugned order was ex-parte, passed without considering their reply dated December 15/19, 2025, to the show cause notice dated December 12, 2025. They argued it was cryptic, non-reasoned, and violated principles of natural justice. The Respondents, through their counsel, fairly agreed that the order was passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and consented to a remand for de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order rejecting the Petitioner's refund application, passed ex-parte and without considering the Petitioner's reply to the show cause notice, is in contravention of the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of principles of natural justice and potentially Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, which deals with the procedure for adjudication. The Petitioner argued that the order was ex-parte, failed to consider their reply, was cryptic and non-reasoned, thus violating natural justice and causing irreparable prejudice. They relied on the decision in Golden Cryo Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. The Respondents, through their counsel, fairly agreed that the order was passed ex-parte without affording a reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner and submitted that the proceedings could be remanded for de novo adjudication.