Ms Mandy Enterprises Proprietorship Concern vs. Deputy Commissioner CGST Division And Another & Anr.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mandy Enterprises, sought a refund of ₹28,84,115/- lying in the electronic cash register. The proprietor, Late Sh. Mandeep Singh Batra, passed away on 10.10.2021. His widow, Mrs. Neera Batra, filed a refund application on 14.06.2023. The Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division, issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on 25.07.2023, citing non-compliance with Section 49(6) of the CGST Act, 2017. The refund was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on 10.08.2023. Mrs. Batra appealed this order, and the Appellate Authority, by an order dated 21.01.2024, found the rejection erroneous and directed the Adjudicating Authority to refund the excess balance. Despite this, the refund was not processed. Mrs. Batra filed a fresh application on 05.02.2024 and a reminder on 11.03.2024, but received no response. The Adjudicating Authority issued another SCN on 28.03.2024, and the petitioner responded on 08.04.2024, but the refund remained unprocessed.
Held
The Court held that the respondents cannot withhold a refund that the Appellate Authority has directed to be issued. The Order in Appeal dated 21.01.2024 is binding unless stayed or challenged before a superior forum. The respondents had not preferred any appeal or initiated proceedings to challenge the appellate order, making it impermissible for them to ignore it. The Court found the issue squarely covered by its earlier decisions in Alex Tour and Travel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-Janakpuri, Kunal International v. Union of India, and G.S. Industries v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr. The reasoning is that once an appellate authority directs a refund, the subordinate authority must comply with it, and cannot unilaterally decide to withhold it without a valid legal challenge or stay order. The Court directed the respondents to forthwith process the refund claim in terms of the Order in Appeal dated 21.01.2024, along with applicable interest.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents can withhold a refund that has been expressly directed to be issued by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, when no appeal or stay has been preferred against the appellate order. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondents are bound by the Order in Appeal dated 21.01.2024, which directed the refund. They contended that it is impermissible for the respondents to ignore this order, especially since no superior forum has stayed or challenged it. The petitioner relied on previous decisions of the Delhi High Court in Alex Tour and Travel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-Janakpuri, Kunal International v. Union of India, and G.S. Industries v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or respondents against the petitioner's claim or in defense of their actions. The court's observation implies the respondents did not challenge the appellate order.
Sections Cited
Section 49(6), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %
Date of Decision: 17.09.2024 + M/S MANDY ENTERPRISES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
.....Petitioner Through: Mr Ankit Sareen and Mr Yash Tandon, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CGST DIVISION AND ANOTHER & ANR.
.....Respondents Through: Mr Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Subham Kumar, Advocate along with Mr Pramod Kumar, Commissioner of CGST (West) through VC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that an appropriate order be passed directing the respondents to grant the refund of ₹28,84,115/- as available in the electronic cash register of the proprietor of M/s Mandy Enterprises, Late Sh. Mandeep Singh Batra.
It is claimed that Sh. Mandeep Singh Batra was providing waste management services to various government and local authoriti
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.