Prerna Enterprises vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Prerna Enterprises, a proprietorship firm engaged in exporting dental case solution items, filed a writ petition seeking a refund of Rs. 88,13,408/- for the period of April to September 2020 under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the refund application was submitted in the prescribed form, but the respondents, the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and another, had not processed it despite the statutory time limits prescribed under Section 54(6) and 54(7) of the CGST Act and Rule 91(2) of the CGST Rules having expired. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in a similar matter.

Held

The Court accepted the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents' counsel undertook to decide the petitioner's refund application in accordance with the law within three weeks. The Court found the petitioner satisfied with this undertaking. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of in accordance with this undertaking. The Court did not delve into the merits of the refund claim itself but relied on the assurance provided by the revenue. The operative direction was for the respondents to decide the refund application within three weeks. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, as the matter was resolved through the undertaking.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs. 88,13,408/- for the period April to September 2020, considering the delay in processing by the revenue authorities, and applicable interest under Section 56 of the CGST Act? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the refund application was duly filed and that the respondents had failed to process it within the time limits stipulated by Section 54(6) and 54(7) of the CGST Act, read with Rule 91(2) of the CGST Rules. They highlighted that at least 90% of the refund for zero-rated supplies should be processed within seven days of acknowledgment, and the entire refund within sixty days. The petitioner cited the case of Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Good and Services Tax to support their claim. Revenue's arguments: The revenue did not present any arguments against the refund claim. Instead, their counsel accepted notice and undertook to decide the petitioner's refund application in accordance with the law within three weeks.