Griham Food And Hotel PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Griham Food and Hotel Pvt Ltd, had a contract with IRCTC which was mutually terminated. The petitioner applied to IRCTC for a refund of GST paid. IRCTC initially refused, leading to a previous writ petition (WPO 1732 of 2022). A coordinate bench directed the IRCTC to consider the refund application with reasons. IRCTC reiterated its refusal, prompting the present writ petition (WPO 1053 of 2023). IRCTC then stated it would refund the GST subject to a complementary refund from GST authorities. The petitioner filed an affidavit confirming they did not avail input tax credit. The Court noted IRCTC's delay in processing the petitioner's refund application.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is unequivocally entitled to a refund of the GST component from IRCTC due to the mutual cancellation of the licence. The reasoning was that the cancellation was by mutual agreement, and the petitioner had confirmed they did not avail input tax credit, removing any impediment to the refund. Regarding the IRCTC's claim for a complementary refund from GST authorities, the Court held that such a refund cannot be mandated by a blanket court direction. The IRCTC's delay in processing the petitioner's application was also noted. The Court directed IRCTC to refund the GST component to the petitioner within three weeks. IRCTC was granted liberty to apply for a complementary refund from GST authorities, which would be processed according to law. The issue of whether GST authorities are legally bound to provide a complementary refund to IRCTC was expressly left to be decided by the GST authorities themselves.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the GST component from IRCTC, given the mutual cancellation of the licence agreement. 2. Whether the Court can mandate a complementary refund from GST authorities to IRCTC. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that they are entitled to a refund of the GST component as the licence was cancelled by mutual agreement and they have not availed input tax credit. They argued that IRCTC's continued refusal, despite the previous court order and their own affidavit, was unjustified. Revenue/State's arguments: The IRCTC argued that a refund of GST to the petitioner was contingent upon receiving a complementary refund from the GST authorities. They did not present arguments against the petitioner's entitlement to the GST refund itself, but rather on the procedural mechanism involving the GST authorities. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the GST authorities.