Carbon Resources Private Limited, Through Its Assistant Manager Mr. Surojit Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court held that there was an admitted non-compliance with Rule 92(3) of the CGST/JGST Rules, 2017. Specifically, the Petitioner was granted only 7 days to furnish a reply, contrary to the 15-day period stipulated in the Rule. The Court also noted that the Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order dated 23.05.2025 was passed, despite repeated requests. The subsequent rectification order dated 30.05.2025 also failed to address this non-compliance. Consequently, the Court set aside both the refund rejection order dated 23.05.2025 and the rectification order dated 30.05.2025. The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division – Giridih (Respondent No. 2) for a fresh decision. The Respondent No. 2 was directed to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to furnish a reply within 15 days and to also hear the Petitioner before passing the final order. The parties were directed to appear before the Respondent No. 2 on 10th December, 2025.

Facts

Carbon Resources Private Limited (the Petitioner) filed two writ petitions before the Jharkhand High Court challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax, Division Giridih (the Respondent No. 2). The first order, dated 23.05.2025, rejected the Petitioner's refund claim. The second order, dated 30.05.2025, was a rectification order that affirmed the rejection. The Petitioner contended that these orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice and without considering their submitted documents. The core of the dispute revolved around the procedure followed by the Assistant Commissioner in processing the refund claim.

Key Issues

1. Whether the refund rejection order dated 23.05.2025 and the rectification order dated 30.05.2025 were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity of being heard, as contemplated under Rule 92(3) of the CGST/JGST Rules, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed without affording them a proper opportunity of being heard. They contended that they were granted only 7 days to furnish a reply, whereas Rule 92(3) mandates a period of 15 days. Furthermore, despite repeated requests, they were not given a personal hearing before the rejection order was passed. They also asserted that their submitted documents were not considered. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the Revenue or State regarding the Petitioner's contentions on natural justice or document consideration. However, the judgment notes an admitted non-compliance with Rule 92(3) by the Petitioner.