Mitra Food Products vs. Commissioner Of Delhi State Goods And Services Tax & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Mitra Food Products, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a refund of Rs. 33,70,851/- for the month of November 2019, on account of zero-rated supplies (export of goods). The petitioner contended that their refund application, filed on November 4, 2020, had not been processed, and neither an acknowledgment (FORM GST RFD-02) nor a deficiency memo (RFD-03) was issued within the stipulated fifteen-day period. The respondents, the Commissioner of Delhi State Goods and Services Tax and another, were represented by the Additional Standing Counsel for GNCTD.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with the consent of both parties. The respondents were directed to process the petitioner's refund application for the month of November 2019, along with any accrued interest, in accordance with the law. This processing and order were to be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of the order. The Court noted the petitioner's submission regarding the delay and the request for interest, and the respondents' agreement to process the application and pay interest. The specific issue of whether the respondents had failed to process the application within the statutory time limit was implicitly acknowledged by the direction for prompt processing and the agreement on interest, but the Court did not delve into a detailed analysis of the violation of specific timelines or the legal consequences thereof beyond directing the refund and interest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to process the petitioner's refund application within the prescribed statutory time limit, and if so, what is the consequence? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their refund application dated November 4, 2020, remained unprocessed, and the statutory timelines for issuing an acknowledgment (FORM GST RFD-02) or a deficiency memo (RFD-03) were violated. They sought the refund along with interest for the delay. Respondents' Contention: The respondents, through their counsel, stated that the petitioner's refund application would be processed and an order passed within six weeks. They had no objection to the payment of interest on the delayed refund.