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. 6Original 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