Ms Gg Corporation vs. Office Of The Commissioner Of Central Tax Appeal Ii Delhi & Ors.
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: A. Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ(s) or directions in the nature thereof to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to claim refund amount of IGST claimed amounting to Rs. 23,79,773/- and direct the Respondents to disburse the refund; B. Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ(s) or directions in the nature thereof setting aside and quashing the Impugned Order-in- Appeal dated 21.06.2024 bearing No. 147/JC/Central Tax/ Appeal-II/ Delhi/2024-25 passed by the Ld. Appellate Authority/ Respondent No. 1 and all consequent proceedings thereto. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:52:14
On 09.07.2025, this Court passed the following order:
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking directions to the Respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 23,79,773/- and to set aside the impugned Order- in-Appeal dated 21st June, 2024 bearing no. 147/JC/Central Tax/ Appeal-II/ Delhi/2024-25 passed by the Respondent No. 1-Appellate Authority.
The primary issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to the refund of a sum of Rs. 23,79,773/-. The stand of the Respondent- CGST Department is that proper documentation was not submitted by the Petitioner.
A perusal of the counter affidavit filed would show that the only plea therein is as under :
“22. With respect to the issues raised in Paras 6.1 & 6.2 of the notice dated 05.09.2023 relating to invoices raised by M/s Rajinder Singh Rekhi, the Petitioner has not furnished necessary documents such as invoices, e-way bills, weighment slip, ledger, payment details etc., to prove that the goods were actually received by the Petitioner. Additionally, the bank statement submitted by the Petitioner with the additional affidavit is illegible.”
In the opinion of this Court, such a plea would not be sufficient to completely deny the refund that has been claimed by the Petitioner, inasmuch as, if there is any deficiency in any of the documents, the department is at least, obligated to process and grant the refund to the extent that complete and satisfactory documentation was available.
Under such circumstances, the Petitioner is directed to file a comprehensive chart indicating all documents in its possession that support its refund claim and have already been submitted to the Respondent–CGST Department within two weeks. The This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:52:14
same may be responded to by the next date of hearing, by the Department.
List on 8th August, 2025. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has furnished the requisite documents on three separate occasions. However, the respondents have failed to take the necessary steps for processing the petitioner's refund claim.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner has not furnished the weighment slip in respect of one of the transactions
In response, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents have already been informed that the petitioner is not in possession of any weighment slips, as the commodity in question is sold on a unit basis and not by weight.
At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that he shall advise the concerned officer to process the petitioner's refund claim and pass an appropriate order thereon within a period of two weeks.
In view of the aforesaid statement, no further orders are called for in the present writ petition. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek revival of the present writ petition in the event no order is passed within the aforesaid period of two weeks. ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. JULY 8, 2026/Pt/RM This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 13/07/2026 at 15:52:14
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.