M/S Ankush Auto Deals vs. Commissioner Of Dgst & Anr.

Held

The Court accepted the undertaking given by the learned counsel for the respondents. The respondents undertook to dispose of the petitioner's representations dated September 22, 2021, and October 5, 2021, in accordance with the law within three weeks from the date of the order. Consequently, the Court held that the present writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The Court did not explicitly rule on the entitlement to interest or exemplary damages, as the matter was resolved through the undertaking and subsequent disposal of the representations. The primary issue addressed was the delay in processing the refund application and the subsequent representations made by the petitioner. The Court's decision was based on the undertaking provided by the respondents to address the pending representations within a specified timeframe.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ankush Auto Deals, filed a writ petition seeking directions for the refund of Rs. 25,29,944/- (comprising SGST and CGST) and interest on the delayed refund. The petitioner also sought exemplary damages, alleging malafide exercise of power by the respondents in withholding the refund. The petitioner contended that the refund application was filed, and despite written requests and reminders dated September 22, 2021, and October 5, 2021, no response was received. The petition was filed before the Delhi High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondents have failed to issue the refund order within the prescribed period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a complete refund application, as stipulated by Section 54(7) of the DGST/CGST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed refund under Section 56 of the DGST/CGST Act due to the respondents' delay in processing or releasing the refund without valid reasons? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemplary damages for the alleged malafide exercise of power by the respondents in withholding the refund? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that Section 54(7) mandates the proper officer to issue a refund order within sixty days of receiving a complete application. They further contended that Section 56 provides for interest on any delay in refund processing or release without justification. The petitioner cited the case of Jian International Vs. Commissioner of Delhi Good and Services Tax, decided by this Court on October 22, 2020, in support of their arguments. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents, through their counsel, accepted notice and, on instructions, undertook to dispose of the petitioner's representations dated September 22, 2021, and October 5, 2021, in accordance with the law within three weeks.