[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
M/S Acco Logistics And Forwarding ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Cgst And ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14415/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14415 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
M/S ACCO LOGISTICS AND FORWARDING THROUGH NISARG Y SHAH
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CGST AND CENTRAL EXCISE DIV XI
(PANOLI) VADODARA -II
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 05/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing
Counsel Ms. Hetvi Sancheti waives service of notice of rule on
behalf of respondent.
2. Since short issue is involved in the present writ petition,
with the consent of learned advocates for the respective
parties, the same is taken up for final hearing for final
disposal.
3. By this petition, the petitioner is praying for issuance of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14415/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
writ of certiorari or writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari, quashing the appeal order in Form GST APL-04
bearing Order No. VAD-CGST-001-APP-ADC-496-2024-25
dated 27.02.2025 setting aside the refund sanction in Form
RFD-06 bearing reference No. ZE2403240403729 dated
21.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST &
Central Excise, Division-XI, Vadodara-II.
4. The refund application filed by the petitioner on
12.02.2024 was sanctioned by the adjudicating authority vide
order dated 21.03.2024, however, the said order was taken in
appeal in Form GST APL-03 by the department on 16.08.2024.
However, by the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by the
Commissioner (Appeals), the GST APL-04 the appeal of the
department was allowed and the refund sanction order of
Rs.8,83,232/- in favour of the petitioner was set-aside which
has given rise to the present writ petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik Vora, at the outset,
submitted that the impugned order has been passed without
recording any findings with regard to the documentary
evidence, which the petitioner had produced before the
adjudicating authority. Thus, it is urged that the impugned
order may be set-aside and the petitioner may be afforded an
opportunity of hearing, to produce all the documents.
6. Per contra, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Hetvi
Sancheti appearing for the respondent, while placing reliance
on the affidavit-in-reply, has submitted that the appellant
authority has precisely set-aside the order of the adjudicating
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14415/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
authority granting refund, in view of the various provisions
which were violated of the Integrated Goods & Services Tax
Act, 2017 (for short "IGST Act"), more particularly Section
16(1) and Section 16(3) of the IGST Act. She has submitted
that the appellate authority granted the opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner, however, the petitioner
failed to attend the same and hence, it is urged that the writ
petition may not be entertained.
7. Upon hearing the respective counsels as well as on a
perusal of the appellate order, we find that the petitioner
herein did not appear before the appellate authority.
However, simultaneously it is also noticed by us that the
appellate authority has not considered the documentary
evidence provided by the petitioner before the adjudicating
authority, who had passed the order in favour of the petitioner
sanctioning refund.
8. It is also noticed by us that the petitioner, even though
he was served hearing notices on 31.01.2025 and 11.02.2025
by the appellate authority, did not appear before the appellate
authority. It is the case of the petitioner that under a bonafide
impression that a link to join virtual hearing would be
provided along with or within the notices themselves,
however, in the absence of any such link, the petitioner was
unable to access or attend the scheduled personal hearing.
9. Thus, though we cannot find any fault in the approach
of the appellate authority in passing the impugned order
without hearing the petitioner, as the petitioner did not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14415/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2026
undefined
appear, though the notices were served upon him, however
the appellate authority was required to consider all the
documentary evidences, which were produced by the
petitioner before the adjudicating authority while passing the
final order.
10. Under the circumstances, we set-aside the impugned
order of appeal and remand the matter to the appellate
authority. We direct that the petitioner shall deposit a cost of
Rs.10,000/- before the appellate authority, as he did not chose
to appear before the authority, looking to the peculiar facts of
the case. The petitioner shall provide all the documents and
shall appear before the authority on a date fixed by it. The
appellate authority shall pass reasoned speaking order after
hearing the petitioner and after considering the relevant
documents, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of
hearing of the petition. The observations in the impugned
order is quashed and set-aside to the aforesaid extent. Rule is
made absolute.
We clarify that this order may not be treated as
precedent. It also goes without saying that we have not gone
into the merits of the matter and all the contentions of the
respective parties are kept open.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
SAJ GEORGE/DB/3
