NOVEMBER 26, 2025

Next Hearing: Yesterday

By Vijay Kumar

A taxpayer had filed a claim for refund of Rs. 36,61,166/-. The refund was sought on account of ITC on exports of goods and services, without payment of integrated tax.

The refund claim was promptly rejected (as most claims often are) vide Order-in-Original dated 24th January, 2025 by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST.

Refunds are like mirages in the desert - visible in crores but vanish when you reach for them; crores shimmer on the horizon, but the taxpayer only tastes sand.

The ground on which the refund was rejected was that the documentary evidence as also E-way bills, shipping bills and the BRCs which were recorded, were not submitted by the Taxpayer.

The Taxpayer challenged the order dated 24th January, 2025, by way of an appeal to the Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi.

In the appeal, personal hearing notices were issued to the Taxpayer by speed-post. However, it appears that the Taxpayer did not attend the hearings; the reasons for the same are not clear. Subsequently, the Taxpayer received another notice of personal hearing on 01st July, 2025, on the GST portal, where it was stated as under:

Thus, the taxpayer was given Personal Hearing on three dates, 04.03.2025, 12.03.2025 and 02.04.2025, none of which he attended. And on 01st July, 2025, three months after the last proposed hearing, he was given another hearing on the next day, 02/07/2025. He earnestly appeared for the hearing on 02/07/2025 and perhaps had the shock of his life when he was informed that the appeal had already been decided on 30th June, 2025. A copy of the Order-in-Appeal was also served upon the Taxpayer's representative. How could an order be passed on 30th June when the hearing for the appeal was fixed for 2 nd July?

It happens!

See the sequence – He was issued a notice on 01/07/2025 that a hearing would take place on 02/07/2025 and on that date he was informed that the order was already passed on 30/06/2025. If the order was already passed on 30/06/2025, what was the need to issue a notice on 01/07/2025 that a hearing would take place on 02/07/2025?

The Joint Commissioner didn't just reject the refund; he rejected the taxpayer's faith in portals.

It seems there were some more notices issued for personal hearings, in Appeals, dated 17th February, 2025, 5th March, 2025 and 17th March, 2025. These notices were all stated to have been handed over physically to the Taxpayer, along with the copy of the Order-in-Appeal.

Now what should the taxpayer do? He is stuck with an Order-in-Appeal passed before the hearing date. He became a petitioner too and filed a writ Petition in the Delhi High Court. ( A L Exports vs Union of India - 2025-TIOL-1855-HC-DEL-GST)

The taxpayer petitioner's Counsel pleaded that when the hearing notice was issued on 01st July, 2025, for a hearing on 02nd July, 2025, the impugned Order-in-Appeal could not have been passed prior to the same. This clearly shows a serious breach of the principles of natural justice.

The long and short of this case, according to the High Court was that the Petitioner has not been afforded an opportunity of being heard. It has been recently noticed that in such appeals, the hearing notices are not uploaded on the GST portal and are only sent by speed-post. It is also unclear if they are sent through e-mail.

Speed -post notices travel faster than light. But they reach the taxpayer only after the appeal is decided .

Einstein missed this relativity: GST bends time so that hearings follow judgments.

The High Court observed that:

1. The Appellate Authority ought to have uploaded the notices for personal hearing on the GST portal.

2. It is pertinent to note that, when the first personal hearing notice was uploaded on 01 st July, 2025, the Petitioner diligently appeared before the Appellate Authority on 02nd July, 2025.

3. However, unfortunately, the impugned Order-in-Appeal had already been passed by the said date.

4. At the time of the uploading of the order, a date is again fixed for personal hearing by a notice that is generated, apparently, due to a system error.

5. Some steps ought to be taken by the GST Department to avoid such a situation in future.

The portal, like a mischievous clerk, generated a hearing notice after the curtains had already fallen.

Under these circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioner deserves a hearing on merits before the Appellate Authority.

Accordingly, the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 30th June, 2025 was set aside.

The Court directed that the appeal against the Order-in-Original may be heard afresh, after providing hearing to the Petitioner.

For the convenience of the learned Appellate authority, the Court also provided the e-mail id and Mobile number of the Taxpayer/Petitioner.

The High Court became the appellate authority of last resort for clerical errors masquerading as orders.

All fine! But against an order of a Joint Commissioner passed before the date of Personal Hearing, should a Taxpayer be forced to approach a busy High Court? The learned Joint Commissioner was certainly aware that the hearing should be before passing the order. It must have been a genuine mistake. But who pays for these mistakes? When the Taxpayer did not appear for the three notices said to have been sent to him, couldn't the Joint Commissioner's office just verify whether the notices were really sent and if they were, whether they reached him. All it needs is to just pick up a phone. Any taxpayer would willingly and fearfully reach the GST office to collect any notice/order. At least the High Court could be spared of hearing such cases. What did the Department gain by this? Not a penny of tax; huge discontent from your taxpayer and needless litigation all around.

And what did the taxpayer gain? He is back to his original state where he is getting a new notice for hearing after spending money, time and efforts to go through the High Court. Is the system meant to disrupt order? What happened to theories like officers are meant to be facilitators and not just enforcers?

The taxpayer gained nothing but déjà vu; the Department gained nothing but discontent; and the High Court gained one more avoidable file. In this theatre, everyone pays - except the system that wrote the script.

Officers are supposed to be facilitators; they facilitate the High Court's docket.

The taxpayer pays in time, the Department pays in credibility, and the Court pays in docket space. The system alone collects applause for its chaos.

Remember

- Natural justice is not a luxury; it is the cheapest tax compliance tool.

- A phone call costs less than a writ petition.

- Litigation is the costliest way to fix a clerical error.

CobWeb at 1000: Chronicling a worried world

Tomorrow, TIOL's flagship column *CobWeb* reaches its 1000th edition. For more than 19 uninterrupted years, our Founder Editor, Shailendra, has written it week after week - without pause, without fail.

In the early days, it used to be said:

"If you want to improve your English, understand world affairs, and crack the IAS, read The Hindu.”

Now, you read The CobWeb.

It began on 12 October 2006 - a line that still echoes:

"Given that even a developed economy like the USA sounds scaringly worried…"

Nineteen years later, the USA still worries - and Shailendra still writes.

A noted lawyer once described CobWeb as the

"CPU of TIOL occupying the monitor."

A fitting metaphor for a column that has consistently processed the world's anxieties - China's rise, America's dilemmas, India's challenges - and displayed them with clarity and depth.

This milestone is not about wit or mischief. It is about discipline, endurance, and intellectual seriousness. *CobWeb* has become an archive of global turbulence, a weekly reminder that the world never stops worrying.

Congratulations, Shailendra, on 1000 weeks of high - tension commentary.

May The CobWeb continue to illuminate the shifting equations of China, the US, and the world order for many more hundreds to come.