Gayathri Cashews Versus Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Cuddalore
GST
2018 (12) TMI 1405 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. ST. L. 408 (Mad.)
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 17-9-2018
W. P. No. 23242 of 2018 and W. M. P. No. 27125 of 2018
GST
Mr K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
\nFor The Appellant : P. Rajkumar
\nFor The Respondents : R. Hemalatha, Senior Standing Counsel
\nORDER
\nK. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
\n1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the respondent dated July 19, 2018, rejecting the petitioner's refund claim.
\n2. 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 thr<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n 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. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n as set out in their application for refund. This court, at 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 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 repl<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gayathri Cashews Versus Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, CuddaloreGST2018 (12) TMI 1405 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – 2018 (19) G. ST. L. 408 (Mad.)MADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 17-9-2018W. P. No. 23242 of 2018 and W. M. P. No. 27125 of 2018 GSTMr K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For The Appellant : P. Rajkumar For … Continue reading “Gayathri Cashews Versus Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Cuddalore”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15707","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15707","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15707"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15707\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15707"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15707"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15707"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. 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 raised by the petitioner in the reply dated July 13, 2018. Apart from saying so, the learned counsel further contended that the respondent ought to have given personal hearing to the pet<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n