Facts of the Case

M/s A. L. Exports, a proprietorship, had filed a claim for refund of Rs. 36,61,166 on account of input tax credit accumulated on exports of goods and services made without payment of integrated tax under the GST law. The refund claim was rejected by Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2025 by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, on the ground that documentary evidence such as E-way bills, shipping bills and Bank Realisation Certificates had not been submitted. The petitioner's subsequent appeal was decided against it by Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi. The petitioner approached the Delhi High Court under Article 226/227, and the matter was heard by a Division Bench and decided by oral order dated 26.09.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the ITC refund claim was validly passed when the personal hearing notice was uploaded on the GST portal only after the appeal had already been decided.
  2. Whether personal hearing notices sent solely by speed-post, without uploading on the GST portal, satisfy the requirement of a genuine opportunity of hearing.
  3. Whether the refund claim deserves fresh consideration on merits after a proper hearing.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Personal hearing notices in the appeal were not uploaded on the GST portal and were sent, if at all, only by speed-post, leaving the petitioner unaware of the actual hearing dates.
  • When a hearing notice was finally uploaded on the portal on 01.07.2025 fixing a hearing for 02.07.2025, the petitioner diligently appeared, only to learn that the Order-in-Appeal had already been passed on 30.06.2025.
  • An order passed before the notice of hearing even reached the petitioner through the portal amounted to a serious breach of principles of natural justice.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The department submitted that personal hearing notices had in fact been issued and copies filed with the writ petition, dispatched through speed-post and bearing valid DIN numbers.
  • It was contended that the requisite procedural steps for granting a hearing had therefore been complied with.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that hearing notices in such appeals were often not uploaded on the GST portal and sent only by speed-post, and that in this case the order had admittedly been passed before the portal notice for hearing on 02.07.2025 could have any effect.
  • Holding that the petitioner had not been afforded a genuine opportunity of being heard, the Court set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2025 and directed the appeal against the original refund-rejection order to be heard afresh.
  • The Appellate Authority was directed to provide a hearing to the petitioner at the specified email address and mobile number and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
  • The Court also observed that the GST Department ought to take steps to avoid system-generated hearing notices being issued after an order has already been uploaded.

Important Clarification

  • A personal hearing notice communicated only by speed-post, without corresponding upload on the GST portal, may not be treated as adequate notice, particularly where the order is passed before the portal notice takes effect.
  • An Order-in-Appeal passed before the date fixed in a subsequently uploaded hearing notice is liable to be set aside as a breach of natural justice, irrespective of any earlier notices claimed to have been issued.
  • Refund claims involving zero-rated exports are entitled to a substantive hearing on the adequacy of documentary evidence (E-way bills, shipping bills, BRCs) before rejection is upheld.

Sections Involved

  • Section 54, CGST Act, 2017 — governs refund of tax, including of unutilised input tax credit on zero-rated supplies made without payment of integrated tax.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 — governs the appellate process before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) against an Order-in-Original.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee. The Order-in-Appeal rejecting the refund was set aside for denial of a genuine hearing, with the appeal to be reheard on merits and a reasoned order passed afresh.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case No.: W.P.(C) 15025/2025
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Hon'ble Justice Shail Jain
Date of Decision: 26.09.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.