Unicorn Tradewinds Proprietor Sameer Meer Sayyad vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax
Held
The Court acknowledged the Petitioner's grievance regarding the delay in the disposal of their refund application dated January 16, 2025. Citing Section 54(7) of the CGST Act, which contemplates the disposal of such applications within 60 days, the Court directed the concerned Respondents and the proper officer to dispose of the Petitioner's refund application expeditiously, and in any event, within two months from the date of uploading the order. The Court further stipulated that if the refund is found due and payable, it must be paid to the Petitioner within 30 days of the order disposing of the refund application. The Respondent's counsel assured the Court of compliance, and this statement was accepted. The petition was disposed of with these directions. No specific issue was left undecided.
Facts
The Petitioner, Unicorn Tradewinds, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the inaction of the Respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, in disposing of their refund application dated January 16, 2025. The Petitioner contended that Section 54(7) of the CGST Act mandates the disposal of refund applications within 60 days. The Respondent, through their counsel, assured the Court that an authenticated copy of the order would be sent to the concerned officer for compliance. The petition was filed in the year 2025.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Respondent authorities have failed to comply with the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 54(7) of the CGST Act for the disposal of the Petitioner's refund application dated January 16, 2025? The Petitioner argued that the Respondent's failure to dispose of the refund application within the stipulated 60 days as per Section 54(7) of the CGST Act is a grievance that warrants the Court's intervention. They relied on the statutory provision to assert their right to a timely decision. The Respondent did not record any specific arguments against the Petitioner's claim regarding the delay. However, their counsel assured the Court of immediate action upon receiving the order, indicating an acceptance of the need for compliance.
Sections Cited
Section 54(7)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
902-WP-15192-25.DOCX Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15192 OF 2025 Unicorn Tradewinds …Petitioner Versus The Deputy Commissioner of State Tax …Respondent ______________________________________________________ Mr. Keval Shah, for Petitioner. Ms. S. D. Vyas, Additional GP with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ______________________________________________________ CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Advait M. Sethna, JJ. DATED: 11 NOVEMBER 2025 PC:-
Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner’s only grievance is that the Respondents are not disposing of the Petitioner’s refund application dated 16 January 2025. He points out that Section 54(7) of the CGST Act contemplates disposal of such application within 60 days.
Accordingly, we direct the concerned Respondents before whom such application is made, or the concerned proper officer, to dispose of the Petitioner’s refund application dated 16 January 2025 as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within two months from the date of uploading of this order, in accordance with law and on its own merits.
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 Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.