Thomson Reuters INDIA Private Limited vs. The Commissioner , Department Of Trade And Taxes And Ors
Original PDF →Facts
Thomson Reuters India Private Limited (Petitioner) filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents, including the Commissioner of Trade and Taxes, to grant refunds along with interest for eight refund claims spanning various periods from April 2020 to June 2023. The petitioner contended that the respondents had failed to convey deficiencies within fifteen days and pass orders within sixty days as stipulated by law. The respondents argued that the refund applications had deficiencies, and communication regarding these objections had been sent, including on the day of the hearing. The petitioner agreed to furnish another set of documents within one week.
Held
The Court disposed of the petition with specific directions. It acknowledged the petitioner's agreement to furnish further documents within one week. Following this, the respondents were directed to process the petitioner's refund applications within four weeks and proceed in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not decided the issue raised by the petitioner regarding the mandatory nature of the sixty-day period prescribed under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and the respondents' obligation to act within that timeframe. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to pursue further remedies if aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents.
Key Issues
1. Whether the respondents are obligated to grant refund claims along with interest within the stipulated timeframes, specifically within sixty days from the date of application as prescribed under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the respondents are statutorily bound to convey any deficiencies in refund applications within fifteen days and to pass appropriate orders within sixty days of the application date. They asserted that the failure to do so necessitates the immediate payment of the refund amount along with interest. Revenue's Contention: The respondents submitted that the petitioner's refund applications contained deficiencies, and communications regarding these objections had been issued. They stated that the petitioner must first clear these objections to enable the processing of the applications.
Sections Cited
Section 54(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 20.08.2025
The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:- “i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the Respondents to grant refund along with interest of the eight refund claims [details as mentioned in Annexure P/1] in a time bound manner for the period (1) April 2020 to March 2021 [Annexure P/3]; (2) June 2021 to August 2021 [Annexure P/4]; (3)September 2021 to December 2021 [Annexure P/5]; (4) January 2022 to June 2022 [Annexure P/6]; (5) July 2022 to September 2022 [Annexure P/7]; (6) October 2022 to December 2022 [Annexure P/8]; (7) January 2023 to March 2023 [Annexure P/9] and (8) April 2023 to June 2023 [Annexure P/10];”
Though, it is the submission of Mr Sawhney that the respondents are under obligation to convey any deficiency in the application for refund within the period of fifteen days and thereafter pass appropriate order within a period of sixty days from the date of application, which has not been done. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 12:04:53
According to him, the amount of which refund has been sought should be paid forthwith along with interest.
The learned counsel for the respondents would submit as the application which has been filed by the petitioner has certain deficiencies, for which the communication has been sent including the communication sent today at 02.15PM, the petitioner must clear those objections to enable the respondents process its application(s).
Mr Sawhney, would submit that though all the documents which have been sought for, are furnished, another set of documents shall be furnished to the respondents within a period of one week from today.
If that be so, the respondents shall process the application(s) of the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter and proceed in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondents, liberty shall be with the petitioner to seek such remedy, as available in law.
It is made clear that we have not decided the issue raised by Mr Sawhney during the hearing that the threshold of sixty days as prescribed under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatory and the respondents are required to act within the said period.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J AUGUST 20, 2025/M This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/08/2025 at 12:04:53
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.