The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the order dated 19.03.2020 in No. ZP2903200301303 [Annexure-A] and for other consequential reliefs.
2. Sri. G. Shivadass, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling in question the order dated 19.03.2020 though amenable to appellate jurisdiction for the following two reasons: [a] The petitioner was served with the preceding show cause notice dated 2.3.2020 for personal hearing scheduled to be held on 17.03.2020 [wrongly mentioned as 17.02.2020 in the show cause notice]. The petitioner responded to such notice on 16.03.2020 requesting for additional fifteen days time to file a detailed reply and also for personal hearing stating that the petitioner had handed over all the papers to its legal consultants and they were in the process of drafting a suitable reply by detailing all the relevant facts. However, no decision was taken on this request but the impugned order is made; [b] the show cause notice is issued on the ground that the second refund application cannot be filed in view of the fact that a similar application filed in the month of September 2018 has been sanctioned by order dated 19.08.2019. The law does not prohibit making of a second application and if the rejection is only because the second application cannot be maintained, the authorities should have mentioned the relevant provision. It was incumbent upon the authorities to indicate in the notice the reason, if there was any, for rejection of the application for refund. In the absence of these details, the show cause notice is not complete and does not serve the purpose in law.
3. Sri. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Counsel who appears for the contesting respondent viz., the third respondent, submits that the contention as regards the deficiencies in the show cause notice dated 2.3.2020 is a matter of adjudication. However, the petitioner who has not participated in the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice cannot canvass such grounds. But, the learned Counsel is unable to controvert that the impugned order is without considering the petitioner’s request for grant of additional time.
4. 5. Therefore, and also for the reasons that the learned Counsel for the parties is unable to point out prohibition in law against grant of extension of time by the third respondent and to serve the interest of justice, this Court is of the considered view that it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the proceeding to the third respondent for a considered decision with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to file its detailed objections and to avail personal hearing.
At this point of time, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would file detailed objections by 14.12.2020 and there could be personal hearing before the third respondent on 21.12.2020. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(a) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(b) The impugned order bearing No.ZP2903200301303 dated 19.03.2020 passed by the third respondent is quashed.
(c) The proceeding in C. No. IV/ 10/ 18/ 2020/ AED-8/GST[R] is restored to the third respondent for adjudication permitting the petitioner to file its detailed objections on or before 14.12.2020 with liberty to the third respondent to fix 21.12.2020 or any such further date as it deems fit for personal hearing.
