Case Details: CBF Component Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 41 Centax 436 (Cal.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Kausik Chanda, J.
- S/Shri Himangshu Kumar Ray, Bhaskar Sengupta & Subhasis Podder, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Vipul Kundalia, Sr. Adv., Ekta Sinha, Anindya Kanan & Ms Sabita Roy, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner filed an application for a refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act. Pursuant to the application, a notice was issued requiring the petitioner to submit a reply within seven days and fixing a date of hearing. The petitioner sought an adjournment, seeking an extension of time to file a reply. The refund authority proceeded to pass a final order rejecting the refund application without granting the adjournment. The record indicated that the adjournment request was stated to have been rejected prior to the passing of the final order; however, the same was not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner contended that he was not granted an adequate opportunity to submit his reply, while the department contended that adjournment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the order was required to be passed within the prescribed time. The matter was thereafter placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules, the petitioner was entitled to fifteen days to submit a reply. It was further held that although adjournment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, the refund authority cannot reject an adjournment request without any justifiable reason, particularly when the statutory scheme mandates a personal hearing. The Court found that the refund rejection order was passed without granting the statutory opportunity of fifteen days and without communication of rejection of adjournment. Accordingly, the refund rejection order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the refund authority to provide an opportunity to submit a reply and to proceed after granting a proper hearing.
