Bombay HC: GST refund application cannot be rejected without recording any reasons

Fact and Issue of the case

By this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has impugned the Order dated 15th June 2020 passed by the Respondent No.3 thereby rejecting the application for refund made by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner has challenged the said impugned Order mainly on the ground that the Respondent No.3 was bound to record reasons in the Order while rejecting the application for refund in view of Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017.

Observation of the Court

A Perusal of the impugned Order indicates that the Respondent No.3 has rejected the application for refund without recording any reasons, though the same is mandatory under Rule 92(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017. In our view, the Order passed by the Respondent No.3 is in breach of the said provisions and deserves to be granted and set aside.

The Court accordingly pass the following Order :-

(a) Impugned Order dated 15th June 2020 passed by the Respondent No.3 is quashed and set-aside.

(b) Application for refund made by the Petitioner for the period July 2017 to March 2018 for the sum of Rs.4,33,03,066/- is restored to file before the Respondent No.3.

(c) The Petitioner is directed to remain present before the Respondent No.3 for personal hearing on 2nd February 2022 at 11.00 am.

(d) Respondent No.3 shall pass a fresh Order without being influenced by the observations made and the conclusions drawn in the impugned Order dated 15th June 2020 and in accordance with law expeditiously and not later than three weeks from the date of granting personal hearing to the Petitioner.

(e) The Order that would be passed by the Respondent No.3 shall be conveyed to the Petitioner within one week from the date of passing of the said Order. If refund application is allowed, the Respondent No.3 shall refund the amount due to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of passing of such Order. If the Order is adverse against the Petitioner, the Petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings.