VIKRAM INDERJIT KAPUR vs Chandrakant Dhondiram Jadhav

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

State Bench Thane
Division Bench Court No. Court I
APL/14/THN/2026
VIKRAM INDERJIT KAPUR .............Appellant
Versus
RAJESH CHANDRAKANT VISHE, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX, 2ND FLOOR
SAI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX NR.
CHITRALAYA BOISAR TARAPUR DIST.
PALGHAR MAHARASHTRA PIN CODE : 401504 .............Respondent

Quorum
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)
Hon’ble Shri Prallhad S. Paranjape, Member (Technical)
Counsel for Appellant

SHRI SURINDER MEHRA, CHARTERED
ACCOUNTANT
Counsel for Respondent
SHRI CHHAGAN D
JAYBHAY
Form GST APL-04A
[See rules 113(1) & 115]
Summary of the order and demand after issue of order by the GST Appellate
Tribunal
whether remand order : No
22/10/2026
Date of order :

Order reference no. :
ZA270231026000057H
1. GSTIN/Temporary ID/UIN - 27AAACL0824C1Z3

2. Appeal Case Reference no. - APL/14/THN/2026 Date - 13/01/2026
Name of the appellant - VIKRAM INDERJIT KAPUR ,

3.
[email protected] , 9821045987
Name of the respondant -
4.
1. RAJESH CHANDRAKANT VISHE
5. Order appealed against -

(5.1) Order Type - Refund Order

(5.2) Ref Number - ZD270720011564O Date - 22/07/2020
Personal Hearing - 22/10/2026 30/09/2026 23/09/2026 20/08/2026
6.
Status of Order under Appeal - Modified – Order under Appeal is
7.
modified
Order in brief - The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the
8.
Adjudicating Authority.
Summary of Order
9. If demand order then whether demand quantified: No

For Other orders and Demand
10.
orders which are not quantified:
Issues as raised
by proper
officer
Issues as determined by
Appellate/Revisional authority
Order by GST Appellate
Tribunal

The appeals are allowed by
way of remand to the
Adjudicating Authority.
Erroneous
3866606
refund
Place :THANE
Signature
Date : 22.10.2026
THANE Shri Ramesh Nair
Designation : Member
Jurisdiction :Thane
ORDER
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
THANE STATE BENCH, MAHARASHTRA

Appeal Nos.: APL/12 to 50/THN/2026 (39 Appeals)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Vikram Inderjit Kapur
Director, M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd.
Tarapur, Boisar (West), Dist. Palghar,
Maharashtra, 401506 .....................Appellant (Assessee)

VERSUS
The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur .........Respondent (Revenue)

Per: Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member
1.1 The present batch of 39 appeals has been preferred by the Appellant, Mr.
Vikram Inderjit Kapur (Director, M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd.),
assailing various Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Joint Commissioner of State
Tax (Appeals), Thane Rural Division, Bhayander, which confirmed the
partial rejection of refund claims across multiple tax periods ranging from
June 2019 to September 2022.
1.2 Since the underlying facts, the nature of the business, the grounds for
refund rejection (i.e., "Mismatch of ITC"), the primary legal challenge
regarding the non-issuance of a Show Cause Notice (Form GST RFD-08),
and the questions of law involved in all 39 appeals are identical, they are taken
up together for disposal by way of this common order. For the sake of brevity
and convenience, the facts pertaining to the refund application for the month
of August 2020 (Appeal arising from Order-in-Appeal dated 25.09.2023 and
Order-in-Original dated 12.01.2021) are being referred to and considered as
the lead case. The decision rendered herein shall apply mutatis mutandis to
all 39 appeals in this batch.
2.
Brief Facts of the Case
2.1 The taxpayer company, M/s. Lavino Kapur Cottons Pvt. Ltd., is a 100%
Export Oriented Unit (EOU) registered under the MGST Act, 2017, engaged

in the manufacture and export of Absorbent Cotton of Pharmacopoeia grade
falling under Chapter 56, subheading 56012110 of the Central Excise Tariff
Act, 1985. The company exports 100% of its finished products without
payment of domestic GST and accordingly claims refunds of accumulated
Input Tax Credit (ITC) under Section 16(3)(a) of the IGST Act, 2017.
2.2 For the month of August 2020, a refund application was filed claiming an
accumulated ITC refund of Rs. 63,17,232/- (comprising CGST of Rs.
23,25,889/-, SGST of Rs. 23,25,889/-, and IGST of Rs. 16,65,454/-).
2.3 The Adjudicating Authority (Deputy Commissioner of State Tax,
Tarapur-502) processed the claim and issued a Refund Sanction/Rejection
Order in Form GST RFD-06 dated 12.01.2021. Vide this order, the
Adjudicating Authority partially sanctioned the refund but rejected an amount
of Rs. 18,09,402/- (CGST Rs. 9,04,701/- and SGST Rs. 9,04,701/-). The sole
reason cited in the order for this substantial rejection was "Mismatch of ITC".
2.4 Crucially, before partially rejecting the refund claim, the Adjudicating
Authority did not issue any Show Cause Notice in Form GST RFD-08, nor
was the Appellant granted any opportunity to file a reply in Form GST RFD-
09 or an opportunity of being heard.
2.5 Aggrieved by this rejection, an appeal was filed before the Joint
Commissioner of State Tax (Appeals), Bhayander. During the appellate

proceedings, detailed written submissions were filed, pointing out the
procedural violation of non-issuance of Form GST RFD-08. A reconciliation
chart was also furnished relying on Notification No. 30/2020-Central Tax
dated 03.04.2020 and Circular No. 142/12/2020-GST dated 09.10.2020,
which permitted a cumulative application of the condition under Rule 36(4)
of the CGST Rules for the period February 2020 to August 2020.
2.6 The First Appellate Authority, in the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated
25.09.2023, explicitly acknowledged and recorded that the Adjudicating
Authority had failed to follow Rule 92(3) of the CGST/MGST Rules, as no
notice in Form GST RFD-08 was issued and no opportunity of being heard
was granted. Despite recognizing this fundamental procedural flaw, the
Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and confirmed the rejection. The
Appellate Authority reasoned that during the personal hearings at the
appellate stage (on 22.08.2023 and 04.09.2023), the Appellant failed to
produce specific invoices of GSTR-3B non-filers and details of capital goods
ITC, rendering the original rejection order sustainable.
2.7 Aggrieved by the impugned Order-in-Appeal (and identically placed
orders for the other 38 tax periods), the Appellant has approached this
Tribunal.
Grounds of Appeal and Submissions by the Appellant

3.1 Shri. Surinder Mehra, learned Chartered Accountant for the Appellant
vehemently argued that the impugned Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal
suffer from severe legal infirmities and have been passed in gross violation
of the principles of natural justice.
3.2 The primary contention raised is that Rule 92(3) of the CGST/MGST
Rules strictly mandates that if any part of a refund claim is found
inadmissible, the proper officer shall issue a notice in Form GST RFD-08,
requiring the applicant to furnish a reply in Form GST RFD-09 within 15
days. The proviso to the said rule explicitly states that no refund application
shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.
The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority bypassed this
mandatory statutory requirement entirely, making the rejection order bad in
law.
3.3 On the merits of the "Mismatch of ITC", the Appellant contended that the
Adjudicating Authority provided no specific details or reasons explaining the
alleged mismatch. The Appellant submitted that the refund application was
filed correctly with all requisite documents, including Annexure-B containing
complete details of invoices for input goods, input services, and input capital
goods, as well as copies of the invoices not reflected in GSTR-2A.

3.4 The Appellant further submitted that the Appellate Authority completely
ignored the substantive legal submissions regarding the relaxation granted by
the Government during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relying on Notification
No. 30/2020-Central Tax and Circular No. 142/12/2020-GST, the Appellant
highlighted that for the period February 2020 to August 2020, Rule 36(4) was
to be applied cumulatively. The Appellant demonstrated via reconciliation
charts that their cumulatively claimed ITC in Form GSTR-3B for this period
was significantly less than the eligible ITC reflected in Form GSTR-2A/2B.
Hence, no disallowance on account of mismatch was legally warranted.
3.5 It was argued that while the Appellate Authority rightly noted the
Adjudicating Authority's failure to issue Form GST RFD-08, it erred in
ignoring the written submissions and instead rejecting the appeal on the
grounds of non-submission of GSTR-3B non-filer details and matching with
GSTR-1A at the appellate stage.
Submissions by the Respondent (Revenue)
4.1 Per contra, Shri. Chhagan D. Jaybhay, learned Authorized Representative
for the Respondent filed a detailed para-wise reply and staunchly defended
the findings of the impugned Order-in-Appeal.

4.2 The Respondent explicitly acknowledged and admitted that while
processing the initial refund claim, FORM GST RFD-08 was not separately
issued by the Proper Officer before restricting the refund amount.
4.3 However, the Respondent respectfully submitted that this procedural
omission should be viewed in the context of the subsequent appellate
proceedings, wherein the Appellant was granted a full and effective
opportunity of being heard. It was pointed out that the Appellate Authority
afforded the Appellant multiple chances for a hearing, specifically on
23.08.2023 and, following an adjournment request, again on 04.09.2023.
4.4 The Respondent argued that during these appellate hearings, the Appellant
was specifically asked to produce detailed documents, including invoices of
supply of goods and services, the return filing position and tax payment proof
of GSTR-3B non-filers, and invoices pertaining to capital goods to verify
whether capital goods ITC was erroneously claimed in the refund. Since the
Appellant failed to submit these requested documents, the Appellate
Authority correctly concluded that the disputed refund amount was not
admissible.
4.5 The Respondent emphatically submitted that the taxpayer was not
deprived of an opportunity to explain their case or produce supporting
documents, as the appellate proceedings successfully cured any initial defect.

It was further contended that the Appellant has not demonstrated any specific
prejudice caused to them by the non-issuance of FORM GST RFD-08, as they
had full knowledge of the disputed refund amount and the reasons for its
rejection, and had adequately contested the same through their statutory
appellate remedy.
4.6 In light of the above, the Respondent prayed that the Tribunal uphold the
findings of the Appellate Authority insofar as the disputed refund was found
inadmissible on merits.
5.
Questions of Law Involved
5.1 In view of the above facts and legal provision, the present batch of 39
appeals gives rise to the following substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether the partial rejection of a refund claim under Section 54 of the
CGST/MGST Act, 2017, without issuing the statutorily mandated Show
Cause Notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and without providing an opportunity
to be heard, constitutes a gross violation of the principles of natural justice
and the specific mandate of Rule 92(3) of the CGST/MGST Rules, 2017?
(b) Whether a foundational procedural defect namely, the complete bypassing
of the original adjudication procedure (non-issuance of a Show Cause Notice)
can be legally cured by merely affording the taxpayer a hearing at the
appellate stage?

(c) Whether, in light of the admitted procedural infirmities at the adjudication
stage, the matters warrant a remand to the Adjudicating Authority to initiate
proceedings afresh in accordance with the law?
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 We have carefully considered the submissions made by the Appellant and
the para-wise reply filed by the learned Authorized Representative for the
Respondent, and have meticulously perused the records of the case. The core
issue before this Tribunal is one of procedural propriety and adherence to the
principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the mandatory statutory
procedure for rejecting a refund claim.
6.2 The procedure for processing and rejecting a refund application is
explicitly laid down in Rule 92(3) of the CGST/MGST Rules, 2017. The said
rule reads as follows:
"Where the proper officer is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
that the whole or any part of the amount claimed as refund is not admissible
or is not payable to the applicant, he shall issue a notice in FORM GST RFD-
08 to the applicant, requiring him to furnish a reply in FORM GST RFD-09
within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of such notice and after
considering the reply, make an order in FORM GST RFD-06 sanctioning the
amount of refund in whole or part, or rejecting the said refund claim and the

said order shall be made available to the applicant electronically and the
provisions of sub-rule (1) shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the extent refund
is allowed:
Provided that no application for refund shall be rejected without giving the
applicant an opportunity of being heard."
6.3 The language of the statute is unambiguous and mandatory. The use of
the word "shall" in Rule 92(3) combined with the absolute embargo in the
proviso makes it abundantly clear that the Adjudicating Authority has no
jurisdiction or discretion to reject a refund claim, either wholly or partially,
without first issuing a notice in FORM GST RFD-08 and affording the
applicant a personal hearing.
6.4 In the present case, it is an admitted and undisputed fact on record that the
Adjudicating Authority directly issued the Refund Sanction/Rejection Order
in FORM GST RFD-06 without issuing FORM GST RFD-08 and without
providing any opportunity of being heard to the Appellant.
6.5 The Respondent has sought to defend this omission by arguing that the
Appellate Authority granted the Appellant an opportunity to be heard, thereby
curing the procedural defect of the original stage. We are unable to accept this
contention. The right to a Show Cause Notice and a hearing before an adverse
civil consequence (such as the rejection of a substantial refund) is inflicted, is

a fundamental statutory right deeply rooted in the constitutional principle of
audi alteram partem . A post-decisional hearing at the appellate stage cannot
serve as a substitute for a pre-decisional statutory notice. By failing to issue
FORM GST RFD-08, the Adjudicating Authority deprived the Appellant of
the right to know the precise grounds for the "Mismatch of ITC" and the
opportunity to furnish a specific, document-backed reply in FORM GST
RFD-09.
6.6 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in an unbroken line of jurisprudence
including Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan , has
emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must act fairly, follow prescribed
statutory procedures, and pass reasoned orders. An order passed in complete
defiance of a mandatory statutory procedure is void ab initio . Because the
foundation of the rejection (the Order-in-Original) is legally unsustainable
due to the violation of natural justice, the superstructure built upon it—the
impugned Order-in-Appeal—must also inevitably collapse. The Appellate
Authority, having noted the blatant violation of Rule 92(3), ought to have
remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority instead of demanding
documents and deciding the case on merits at the first appellate stage.
6.7 Consequently, without delving into the substantive merits regarding the
exact nature of the ITC mismatch or the applicability of the COVID-19 relief

circulars, we find it imperative to remand the entire batch of 39 appeals to the
Adjudicating Authority to restore the procedural integrity of the assessment.
7. ORDER
7.1 For the facts, reasons, and legal provisions discussed hereinabove, the
impugned Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Joint Commissioner of State Tax
(Appeals), Thane Rural Division, Bhayander, and the corresponding Orders-
in-Original passed by the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Tarapur to the
extent it reject the refund claims, in respect of all 39 appeals covered under
this batch, are hereby set aside.
7.2 The matters are remanded to the Adjudicating Authority keeping all the
issues open for fresh, de novo processing of the refund applications. The
Adjudicating Authority is directed to strictly comply with the statutory
mandate of Rule 92(3) of the CGST/MGST Rules, 2017.
7.3 If the Adjudicating Authority, upon verification, finds any part of the
claimed refund to be inadmissible, the Authority shall:
(a) Issue a proper, detailed Show Cause Notice in FORM GST RFD-08
(subject to the provisions and timelines permitted by law), explicitly setting
out the specific invoice-wise details of any alleged ITC mismatch or other
grounds for proposed rejection.

(b) Grant the Appellant sufficient opportunity, to furnish a comprehensive
reply in FORM GST RFD-09, allowing them to submit all relevant
reconciliation charts, circulars, and corroborative evidence.
(c) Afford the Appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing.
(d) Pass a speaking and reasoned order in FORM GST RFD-06 in accordance
of law preferably, dealing with all the submissions and evidence placed on
record by the Appellant.
7.4 The Appellant is directed to cooperate fully with the remand proceedings
and adduce all requisite evidence before the Adjudicating Authority.
7.5 All 39 appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
(Pronounced in open court on 22.10.2026)




(Shri Ramesh Nair)
(Shri Prallhad S. Paranjape)
Member (Technical)
Member (Judicial)
Dated: 22.10.2026