GST Update

 Desk of CA. Praveen Sharma – 1021 Series (CAPS) 

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF Viral Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 

The petitioner challenged the order dated 24.02.2026 rejecting the GST refund application on the ground of limitation.

The petitioner contended that the refund was rejected without granting a proper opportunity of personal hearing as mandated under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules.

In response to the Show Cause Notice dated 06.02.2026, the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 12.02.2026.

Along with the reply, the petitioner specifically requested a personal hearing through virtual mode to clarify departmental queries.

The department, however, passed the refund rejection order without fixing any date for hearing or considering the request for virtual hearing.

The Revenue argued that the Show Cause Notice itself mentioned 13.02.2026 as the date for personal hearing and also contended that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 107.

The High Court observed that the petitioner had specifically requested a fresh hearing through virtual mode, which was ignored by the department.

The Court held that Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules makes it mandatory to provide an opportunity of hearing before rejecting a refund application.

Since no effective hearing was granted, the Court held that there was a clear violation of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions.

Accordingly, the impugned refund rejection order dated 24.02.2026 was quashed and the matter was remanded back to the authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

LINK:CA. Praveen Sharma on Linkedin

Regards
CAPS