Case Details: Velocity Exports LLP vs. Union of India (2026) 39 Centax 433 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- Shri Hasit Dave, for the Petitioner.
- Shri Harshvardhan Sharma, AGP & Ms Hetal G. Patel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged GST refund adjudication proceedings involving an alleged bogus refund and contended that the rejection of its refund claim was made without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing. Having relied on the principles of natural justice while assailing the proceedings initiated through FORM GST RFD-08. However, the record showed that the notice fixed a personal hearing, and a subsequent notice again called upon the petitioner to appear with documents and submit a reply. It was further recorded that the petitioner had sought time and filed a reply. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that adequate opportunity of hearing had been granted through the notices issued during refund adjudication and therefore the requirement of hearing under Section 75 read with Section 54 of the CGST Act and the corresponding provisions of the Gujarat GST Act stood satisfied. It was observed that the petitioner’s own conduct of seeking time and filing a reply contradicted the allegation of denial of hearing. It further noted that submissions made before the Court regarding adjournment requests were inconsistent and unsupported by the record. Observing that the petitioner had made misleading statements before the Court regarding the denial of a personal hearing, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000.
