Case Details: Golden Cryo Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 41 Centax 192 (Bom.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ.
- Dr Sujay Kantawala, Anupam Dighe, Ms Renita Alex, & Ms Chandni Tanna, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, being an exporter, filed a refund application for accumulated input tax credit on export without payment of tax under section 54 of the CGST Act and the Maharashtra GST Act. The proper officer issued a show cause notice in Form GST RFD-08 alleging fake invoices by suppliers and granted only seven days to reply. The petitioner emailed a preliminary reply and sought a personal hearing. The proper officer nevertheless passed an order in Form GST RFD-06 on the next day, rejecting the refund without issuing any hearing notice. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that there is a specific requirement under Rule 92(3) of the CGST Rules and the Maharashtra GST Rules that a notice be issued in Form GST RFD-09. It was held that a time of fifteen days must be made available to persons to whom it is issued to reply. It was further held that only after considering reply, if any, filed within a period of fifteen days, and after an opportunity of hearing being granted, an order on such notice can be passed. It was held that the curtailment of the reply period to seven days rendered the show cause notice illegal. It was also held that the decision was made without verifying the reply trail and without granting a hearing, which violated the mandate of law and fairness. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order was quashed with direction to issue a fresh notice and decide after hearing.
List of Cases Cited
- Carbon Resources (P) Ltd. v. Union of India — [Writ Petition (T) No. 3532 of 2025, dated 26-11-2025] — Referred [Para 5]
- Haren Textiles (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CST — (2024) 24 Centax 209 (Bom) — Followed [Para 12]
- Tvl. C. Ragupathi Contractor v. Dy. CST — (2026) 39 Centax 321 (Mad.) — Referred [Para 5]
