M/S Continental INDIA Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Continental India Private Limited, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in processing a refund that had been allowed by the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals). The respondent authorities, through the Deputy Commissioner (Dbk), NOIDA Custom Commissionerate, had sought clarification and verification from the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (EPC), Central CGST, Meerut, via a letter dated December 16, 2024. However, no reply had been received from the noticee authority, leading to the delay in refund processing.
Held
The Court found that the officers were unnecessarily delaying the matter. Consequently, the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (EPC), Central CGST, Meerut, was directed to immediately act on the letter dated December 16, 2024, and provide a reply to the Deputy Commissioner (Dbk), NOIDA Custom Commissionerate within three weeks from the date of the order. Upon receiving this reply, the respondent authorities were directed to act in accordance with the law, ensuring that the refund is processed and paid to the petitioner within three months. The Court also explicitly stated that applicable interest, as per the Act, must be paid along with the refund amount. The Court did not leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities have unduly delayed the processing of an allowed GST refund, thereby violating the petitioner's right to timely refund and applicable interest? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondent authorities have been inactive in processing the refund, which was already sanctioned by the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals). This inaction has caused undue hardship and financial loss to the petitioner. Respondent's Contention: The respondent authorities, represented by the Deputy Commissioner (Dbk), NOIDA Custom Commissionerate, submitted that the delay was due to the need for clarification and verification from another authority, the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (EPC), Central CGST, Meerut. They stated that a letter was sent on December 16, 2024, but no reply had been received from the noticee authority.
Sections Cited
None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, other than a general reference to 'the Act' for interest calculation.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:113437-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2985 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Continental India Private Limited Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suyash Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Priyanka Midha Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Anant Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri Gaurav Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents authority in refunding the refund claimed by the petitioner, which has been allowed by the Commissioner, CGST (Appeals).
Sri Gaurav Mahajan, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that by letter dated December 16, 2024, the Deputy Commissioner (Dbk), NOIDA Custom Commissionerate has written to the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (EPC), Central CGST, Meerut for clarification and verification but till date no reply is forthcoming from the noticee.
In light of the same, we are of the view that the officers are unnecessarily delaying this matter, and accordingly, Deputy/Assistant Commissioner (EPC), Central CGST, Meerut is directed to immediately act on the letter dated December 16, 2024 and reply to the Deputy Commissioner (Dbk), NOIDA Custom Commissionerate within a period of three weeks from date. Once the letter is received, the respondents authority to act in accordance with law and ensure that the refund is processed and paid to the petitioner within a period of three months. Needless to mention that applicable interest as per the Act shall also be paid along with the refund amount.
With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 15.7.2025 Kuldeep (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.