1. Home

SGST High Court Cases

GST - Object and purpose of Rule 92 (3) of CGST Rules, 2017 – Refund - Receipt of advance towards of construction of flat – Cancellation of booking before completion of construction – Petitioner sought refund of GST paid by it on account of supply having not been completed due to cancellation of the agreement – Rejection of refund without assigning any reason - violation of principles of natural justice incorporated under Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules, 2017 – HELD – A fair, logical and rational interpretation of Rule 92(3) of CGST Rules would be that in case proper officer is satisfied that claim for refund is not admissible then it is required to issue a notice to the applicant requiring him to furnish a reply within a stipulated period. The aforesaid provision incorporates the principles of natural justice - The Rule making authority in its wisdom has laid down that whenever there is a satisfaction arrived at to reject wholly or in part the claim for refund, a notice is required to be mandatorily issued clearly stating the reasons for such satisfaction arrived at by the proper officer. This provision has been included to ensure that before rejection of the claim, the applicant comes to know why his application is being rejected so that he could get an opportunity to satisfy the authority that the tentative reason is not correct. The object and purpose seems to minimise the error in the decision making process. It is for this reason that the principles of natural justice have been incorporated in Rule 92(3) mandatorily requiring the proper officer to communicate the reasons for such satisfaction, obtaining reply from the concerned applicant and then pass an order. The language of the provision contained in sub-Rule (3) of Rule 92 of the CGST Rules, 2017 is clear that final order has to be passed after consideration of the reply – in the present case, what was stated in the impugned order to reject claim for refund was not at all stated, even briefly, in the show cause notice – it is apparent that the issuance of SCN was a farce and an empty formality by the authority rather than making it a meaningful exercise requiring the assessee to offer its reply to the reasons for proposed rejection of application for claim of refund - the provisions contained in Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules incorporating principles of natural justice were completely violated – the impugned orders are set aside and matter remitted to the proper officer for issuance of proper notice in FORM GST-RFD-08, obtaining reply of the petitioner and then pass such order as may be considered appropriate in accordance with law - The writ petition is allowed
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Dr. G. Gokul Kishore

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Income Tax Deductors/Collectors...
CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?