M/S. Sans Frontiers vs. The Assistant Commissioner, CGST

Held

The Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, who, on instructions, assured that the refunds claimed in the petitions would be processed within a period of ten working days from the date of the order. Based on this assurance, the Court bound the respondent to its statement. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claims or the underlying orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) but disposed of the petitions on the basis of the respondent's undertaking. The ratio decidendi is that when a revenue authority undertakes to process a refund within a stipulated time, the High Court will dispose of the writ petition on that basis, holding the authority to its promise.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s. Sans Frontiers, filed three writ petitions before the Delhi High Court seeking the refund of amounts due to them as per orders passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). The respondent in these petitions was the Assistant Commissioner, CGST. The petitions were filed seeking directions for the release of these refunds. The specific tax periods and the amounts in dispute were not detailed in the provided judgment excerpt. The procedural history indicates that the petitioners approached the High Court after the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed favorable orders, but the refunds were allegedly not processed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority is obligated to process and release the refunds due to the petitioner in terms of the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to the refunds as confirmed by the appellate authority and sought the High Court's intervention to direct the respondent to process these refunds. The petitions were filed to enforce the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). Respondent's contention: The respondent, through its counsel, stated on instructions that the refund claims would be processed within ten working days from the date of the order. No specific legal arguments or reliance on provisions were recorded for the respondent's side, other than their undertaking to process the refund.