Harbhajan Singh Thukral vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Harbhajan Singh Thukral, engaged in trading motor parts and mobiles, sought a refund of Rs. 9,09,727/- from an excess balance in their electronic cash ledger. The refund application was accepted by the jurisdictional officer on April 12, 2023. However, the amount was adjusted towards an outstanding liability of Rs. 10,71,941/- by an order dated September 18, 2023. Subsequently, it was submitted that a demand of Rs. 12,10,668/- against the petitioner had been cancelled. The respondent, GST Commissionerate, Delhi South, Palam, in its counter affidavit, admitted that an order dated July 24, 2023, cancelling the liability in FORM GST DRC-8A, was not uploaded on the AIO portal, which led to the appropriation of the sanctioned refund amount.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of Rs. 9,09,727/- along with statutory interest. The reasoning was based on the admission by the respondent GST Commissionerate that the order cancelling the outstanding liability (FORM GST DRC-8A dated July 24, 2023) was not uploaded on the AIO portal. This administrative failure on the part of the revenue led to the erroneous appropriation of the petitioner's refund. The Court found that the subsequent cancellation of the demand meant there was no valid outstanding liability against which the refund could be adjusted. The ratio decidendi is that administrative lapses in updating portals should not prejudice a taxpayer's legitimate claims, especially when the underlying demand has been quashed. The Court directed that the refund application be processed and the refund, along with statutory interest, be paid to the petitioner within two months.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of Rs. 9,09,727/- along with statutory interest, considering that the outstanding liability against which the refund was adjusted was subsequently cancelled. The petitioner contended that they are entitled to the refund as the basis for adjustment, i.e., the outstanding liability, was later quashed. The petitioner argued that the failure to upload the cancellation order on the AIO portal led to an erroneous adjustment of their legitimate refund. The respondents, through the GST Commissionerate, admitted that an order in FORM GST DRC-8A dated July 24, 2023, cancelling the liability, was not uploaded on the AIO portal. This non-uploading resulted in the appropriation of the sanctioned refund amount against the outstanding liability. The respondents acknowledged that the cancellation order was issued after the initial appropriation orders.
Sections Cited
FORM GST DRC-8A, FORM GST DRC-7A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 20.08.2025
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition seeks refund of a sum of Rs.9,09,727/- along with interest.
The case of the Petitioner is that it is an entity engaged in trading of motor parts and mobiles. The Petitioner is claiming to have made a refund application for the excess balance lying in the electronic cash ledger. The same was accepted by the concerned Juri ictional Officer on 12th April, 2023, however, the amount was adjusted towards the outstanding liability of the Petitioner.
A perusal of the records would show that though initially a sum of Rs.7,71,000/- has been issued as refund to the Petitioner, the same has been 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 12:11:30
appropriated/adjusted towards the outstanding liabilities against the Petitioner, of Rs.10,71,941/- vide order dated 18th September, 2023. 5. On the last date i.e., 7th April, 2025, it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for Delhi GST that a demand of Rs.12,10,668/- has been cancelled against the Petitioner and the same has been sent to the Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate, Palam. Accordingly, Mr. Singla, ld. SSC was directed to seek instructions.
Mr. Singla, ld. SSC has filed the counter affidavit dated 17th May, 2025 on behalf of Respondent No. 2 – GST Commissionerate, Delhi South, Palam. The stand of the Respondent No. 2 in the said counter affidavit is that the said liability against the Petitioner stands cancelled vide order dated 24th July, 2023 in FORM GST DRC-8A. However, the said order was not uploaded on the AIO portal which resulted in the appropriation of the sanctioned amount. The relevant paragraph of the counter affidavit reads as under:
“9. In so far as paragraph 8 of the writ petition is concerned, save and except what are matters of record and save for what are admitted hereinabove specifically, all other allegations and/or contentions to the contrary are denied and disputed. It is reiterated that it is a fact on record that the adjudicating authority noticed that there was an outstanding liability of Rs.12,10,668/- as reflected on AIO portal vide Form GST DRC-7A dated13.03.2022 issued by the concerned juri ictional ward officer and accordingly, appropriated dues amounting Rs. 9,09,727/- by way of the impugned orders dated 12.04.2023 and 18.09.2023. 11. In so far as paragraph 13 of the writ petition is concerned, save and except what are matters of record and save for what are admitted hereinabove specifically, all other allegations and/or contentions to 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 12:11:30
the contrary are denied and disputed. It is further submitted that the order dated 24.07.2023 in FORM GST DRC-8A was not uploaded onto the AIO portal which resulted in appropriation of the sanctioned amount against the outstanding liability of Petitioner.
In so far as paragraph 14 of the writ petition is concerned, save and except what are matters of record and save for what are admitted hereinabove specifically, all other allegations and/or contentions to the contrary are denied and disputed. It is submitted that the letter dated 10.04.2024 issued by the GSTO Ward 106 regarding "quashing outstanding portal" was issued after the issuance of impugned orders dated 12.04.2023 and 18.09.2023, and was a fact subsequent in time.” In view of the above, the Petitioner submits that the amount of refund being sought is liable to be paid to the Petitioner.
Accordingly, let the refund application be processed and the refund be paid to the Petitioner along with statutory interest in accordance with law within a period of two months from today.
The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. SHAIL JAIN, J. AUGUST 20, 2025 kk/msh 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 12:11:30
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.