Aj Flight Reservations PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner Of CGST, Delhi West And Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, AJ Flight Reservations Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents, the Commissioner of CGST, Delhi West and another authority, to issue a refund of Rs. 81,79,529/- along with interest. The petitioner claims to have filed the refund application on January 31, 2024. According to the petitioner, no deficiency memo has been issued by the proper officer to date. The statutory period of 60 days for processing the refund claim has elapsed.

Held

The Court directed the proper officer to expedite the processing of the petitioner's refund application and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks in accordance with the law. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed the refund claim on January 31, 2024, and the statutory period of 60 days had elapsed without the issuance of a deficiency memo. The Court's decision is based on the premise that the statutory timeline for processing refund claims should be adhered to. The judgment also stated that it would be open for the petitioner to avail of further remedies if aggrieved by any order passed by the proper officer on the refund application and claim of interest. No specific finding was made on the quantum of refund or interest, as the matter was disposed of with a direction for expedited processing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proper officer has failed to process the refund application within the statutory period of 60 days as stipulated under Section 54 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby entitling the petitioner to a direction for expedited processing and potential interest. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they filed a refund claim on January 31, 2024, and since the statutory period of 60 days has elapsed without any deficiency memo being issued, the proper officer is obligated to process the application. They seek a direction for the issuance of the refund and applicable interest. Respondents' Contention: The respondents accepted notice, and with the consent of both parties, the petition was taken up for final disposal. No specific arguments against the petitioner's claim for expedited processing were recorded.