Zee Technologies vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax
Held
The Court noted that the petitioner's primary grievance regarding the refund had largely been satisfied, with a substantial amount already approved. The remaining dispute concerned Rs. 20,071/-. The petitioner's counsel drew the Court's attention to a communication dated April 11, 2022, asserting that this sum had already been paid. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Satyakam, stated on record that if the information in the aforementioned communication was verified as correct after checking with the concerned bank, the said amount would be remitted to the petitioner. Based on this statement by the respondent, the Court closed the writ petition.
Facts
The petitioner, Zee Technologies, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging an action by the Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax. The petitioner's primary grievance was related to a refund. The counsel for the petitioner stated that a substantial portion of the refund had been approved by the respondent. However, a remaining amount of Rs. 20,071/- was still in dispute. The petitioner asserted that this sum had already been paid, referencing a communication dated April 11, 2022. The respondent's counsel indicated that upon verification with the bank, if the information in the communication was found to be correct, the remaining amount would be remitted to the petitioner.
Key Issues
1. Whether the outstanding amount of Rs. 20,071/-, claimed by the petitioner to have been paid, should be remitted to the petitioner by the respondent. This issue turns on the factual verification of payment and the respondent's obligation to release the remaining refund amount. The petitioner argued that the amount had already been paid and sought its release. The respondent, represented by Mr. Satyakam, stated that they would verify the payment with the bank and, if confirmed, would remit the amount to the petitioner. No specific provisions of the GST Act were explicitly named in the arguments presented.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2022 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]`
Counsel for the petitioner says that largely, the grievance of the petitioner stands satisfied i.e., that a substantial amount towards refund has already been approved by the respondent/revenue.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, the only grievance that now remains concerns the deduction of Rs.20,071/-.
According to the counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid sum has already been paid. In this behalf, our attention has been drawn to the communication dated 11.04.2022, which is, appended on page 31 of the case file.
Mr Satyakam, who appears on behalf of the respondents, says that, after verifying the position from the concerned bank, if what is indicate
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 Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.