The High Court of Delhi allowed a writ petition filed by the legal heirs of a deceased proprietor.
Directing respondents to forthwith process the claim for refund in terms of the Order in Appeal dated 21.01.2024 along with applicable interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~5
M/S MANDY ENTERPRISES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN .....Petitioner Through: Mr Ankit Sareen and Mr Yash Tandon, Advocates.
versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CGST DIVISION AND ANOTHER & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Anurag Ojha, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Subham Kumar, Advocate along with Mr Pramod Kumar, Commissioner of CGST (West) through VC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. ( ORAL )
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DUSHYANT RAWA L
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 12214/2024
expired on 10.10.2021.
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 12214/2024
“8. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the adjudicating authority has erred in rejecting the appellant’s rightful refund claim for excess balance in electronic cash ledger. The impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is neither legal nor maintainable in law as such the same is liable to be set aside and the appellant’s appeal is liable to be allowed. The adjudicating authority is directed to refund the said excess balance in appellant’s electronic cash ledger into the bank account of the appellant firm for which Smt. Neera Batra has become legal heir in terms of succession certificate issued by the Hon’ble Court. Accordingly, I pass the following order:”
[emphasis added]
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 12214/2024
respondents have not preferred any appeal or any proceedings to challenge the Order in Appeal dated 21.01.2024. It is impermissible for the respondents to simply ignore the said order. The issue is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Alex Tour and Travel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-Janakpuri: Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC:3303-DB , Kunal International v. Union of India: 2023: DHC:7316-DB and G.S. Industries v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr.: 2023: DHC:2402-DB.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J
SEPTEMBER 17, 2024 RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 12214/2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents can withhold the refund directed to be issued by the appellate authority.
Whether the appellate order dated 21.01.2024 needs to be implemented by the respondents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Alex Tour and Travel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-JanakpuriReferred¶31
Alex Tour and Travel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-Janakpuri: Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC:3303-DB
Kunal International v. Union of IndiaReferred¶31
Kunal International v. Union of India: 2023: DHC:7316-DB
G.S. Industries v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr.Referred¶31
G.S. Industries v. Commissioner Central Goods and Services Tax Delhi West & Anr.: 2023: DHC:2402-DB
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Mandy Enterprises Proprietorship Concern
Deputy Commissioner, CGST Division
Another & Anr.
Vibhu Bakhu
Sachin Datta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
