M/S. Arts And Crafts Exports vs Union Of India ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2267 Raj

[2023/RJJD/006863] (1 of 2) [CW-7020/2020]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7020/2020

M/s. Arts And Crafts Exports, Through Its Proprietor Shri Sunil Sancheti, Aged 52 Years S/o Shri Prakash Sancheti, 39-40, 47- 48, Heavy Industrial Area, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through Its Revenue Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, 128-A North Block, New Delhi.

2. The Deputy Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Circle - C, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjay Kothari. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hemant Dutt, through V.C.

Mr. Kuldeep Vaishnav.

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

17/03/2023

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner placed up for

consideration of this Court the copy of judgment dated 17.01.2023

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.5460/2020 (M/s Chandani Crafts Vs. Union of India &

Anr.) to submit that the issue raised in this writ petition is no

longer res-integra and covered by the order mentioned above.

The issue involved in the present petition is with regard to

rejection of claim for refund of Accumulated Input Tax Credit in

terms of provisions of Section 54 (3) of the Central Goods and

Service Tax Act, 2017. Amongst various grounds, one of the

[2023/RJJD/006863] (2 of 2) [CW-7020/2020]

grounds raised by the petitioner assailing correctness of the

impugned order and inaction on part of the respondents is that

the rejection is without providing any opportunity of hearing as

envisaged under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules for issuance of

notice in the Form GST RFD-08.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is not in a position

to dispute the aforesaid factual averment.

If that be so, we are of the view that this petition also

deserves to be allowed in terms of order dated 17.01.2023 passed

by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Chandani

Crafts (supra), wherein it has been held that the rejection of claim

without affording any opportunity of hearing is violative of Rule

92(3) of the CGST Rules.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned

order to the extent of rejecting the claim of refund of the

petitioner is set aside. The respondents however shall be at liberty

to initiate proceedings in accordance with law and pass orders

after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

consistent with the mandate of Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA), ACJ

14-Prashant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)