M/s. Sri Gayathri Cashews Versus The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise,
GST
2019 (1) TMI 610 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. S. T. L. 408 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-9-2018
W. P. No. 23242 of 2018 And WMP No. 27125 of 2018
GST
Mr. Justice K. Ravichandrabaabu
For petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Hemalatha Senior Standing Counsel
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent dated 19.07.2018, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim.
2.The petitioner assessee sought refund of integrated tax to the tune of Rs. 75,67,642/- based on certain reasons and grounds raised in the application for refund, one submitted through online on 14.06.2018 and
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
thout 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 04.07.2018 are not factually correct, the respondent is not justified in reiterating the very same reasons in the impugned order, without looking into the contentions raised by the petitioner in the reply dated 13.07.2018. Apart from saying so, the learned counsel further contended that the respondent ought to have given personal hearing to the petitioner, as he has not chosen to accept the reasons st
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
t this stage, 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 13.07.2018, filed in response to the deficiency memo dated 04.07.2018 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 13.07.2018.
7. Perusal of the impugned order would sho
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =