Facts
The Petitioner challenged an order dated 24.02.2026 passed by Respondent No. 1, which rejected a refund application filed under Section 54 of the GST Act solely on the grounds of limitation.
Source reference: para. 1On 06.02.2026, the Department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) fixing 13.02.2026 for both the reply and a personal hearing.
Source reference: para. 3While the Petitioner submitted its reply on 12.02.2026—specifically requesting a hearing via virtual mode to clarify departmental queries—the Department passed the final rejection order on 24.02.2026 without fixing an additional date or providing the requested hearing.
Source reference: para. 2, 4Issues
1. Whether the rejection of a refund application without providing a personal hearing, despite a specific request by the assessee, constitutes a violation of statutory rules and principles of natural justice.
Source reference: para. 2, 5Law Applied
Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules (mistakenly cited as Rule 93(3) in the concluding paragraphs of the judgment), which mandates that no application for a refund shall be rejected without giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard.
Source reference: para. 2, 5Section 54 of the GST Act regarding refund procedures and Section 107 regarding the availability of alternative appellate remedies.
Source reference: para. 1, 3Reasoning
The Court observed that although the SCN had originally scheduled a hearing date coincident with the reply deadline, the Petitioner’s subsequent formal request for a virtual hearing in its reply dated 12.02.2026 was ignored.
Source reference: para. 4The Court found that the Department proceeded to pass the impugned order without considering this request or fixing a new date for hearing.
Source reference: para. 4Despite the Revenue’s argument that the Petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107, the Court determined that the failure to provide a personal hearing amounted to a "clear violation" of the mandatory procedural safeguards provided under the CGST Rules.
Source reference: para. 3, 5Holding
The Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding that the impugned order was passed in violation of statutory rules requiring a hearing.
The Court quashed the order dated 24.02.2026 and remitted the matter back to Respondent No. 1 to proceed strictly in accordance with the law.
Source reference: para. 5The writ petition was allowed to this extent.
Source reference: para. 6Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20172
Original Court PDF
MS VIRAL BUILDON PVT LTDvsASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF STATE TAX OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER STATE TAX SECTOR 2
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
