2018 (12) TMI 1405 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. ST. L. 408 (Mad.) – Refund of integrated tax paid – opportunity of personal hearing not provided – principles of natural justice – Held that:- It is evident that the respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order not only by ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioner dated July 13, 2018, filed in response to the deficiency memo dated July 4, 2018 and also in violation of the principles of natural justice, as admittedly the petitioner was not afforded with the personal hearing, even though such request was specifically made by the petitioner through their reply dated July 13, 2018.
–
The respondent has chosen to reiterate the deficiencies already pointed out in the deficiency memo, as the reason for rejecting the refund application, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, as to how such deficiencies pointed out by the respondent are either improper or not warranted. Therefore, this court is of the view
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
petitioner through their reply dated July 13, 2018 informed the respondent that the application filed already is in order and thus, requested the respondent to consider their refund application. In the said communication, the petitioner also specifically requested to afford a personal hearing in case, the respondent is not inclined to accept their submissions. However, without referring to the said reply dated July 13, 2018 received by the respondent on July 17, 2018 and also without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, the present impugned order was passed reiterating the very same reason stated in the said deficiency memo. 3. Mr. P. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner has explained in detail as to how the deficiencies pointed out in the memo dated July 4, 2018 are not factually correct, the respondent is not justified in reiterating the very same reasons in the impugned order, without looking into the contentions
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
age, is not expressing any view on the merits of the refund claim, as it is for the respondent to consider and decide. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side, it is evident that the respondent has chosen to pass the impugned order not only by ignoring the reply submitted by the petitioner dated July 13, 2018, filed in response to the deficiency memo dated July 4, 2018 and also in violation of the principles of natural justice, as admittedly the petitioner was not afforded with the personal hearing, even though such request was specifically made by the petitioner through their reply dated July 13, 2018. 7. Perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent has chosen to reiterate the deficiencies already pointed out in the deficiency memo, as the reason for rejecting the refund application, without considering the explanation given by the petitioner, as to how such deficiencies poin
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =