Allowed

Ms Prosperity Asset Xii LLP v. Superintendent Central Goods and Services Tax Range 60 & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Feb 2025W.P.(C)/16373/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought restoration of GST registration despite an order in appeal in their favour. The Revenue claimed a decision to appeal placed compliance in abeyance. Relying on Alex Tour & Travel, the Court held no provision of the CGST Act permits such withholding and directed immediate restoration of registration.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to restore petitioners' GST registration forthwith in terms of the appellate order dated 14 February 2024.

Ms Prosperity Asset Xii LLP Vs Superintendent Central… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~44 to 47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 16373/2024, CM APPL.7270/2025

¶4

MS PROSPERITY ASSET XII LLP .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Adhitya Srinivasan, Mr. Rishabh Kanojiya, Mr. Ankur Das and Mr. Srajan Tyagi, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RANGE 60 & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi SSC,CBIC.

¶7

¶8

W.P.(C) 16374/2024, CM APPL.7274/2025

¶9

MS PROSPERITY ASSET XII LLP .....Petitioner

¶10

Through: Mr. Adhitya Srinivasan, Mr. Rishabh Kanojiya, Mr. Ankur Das and Mr. Srajan Tyagi, Advs.

¶11

versus

¶12

SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RANGE 60 & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi SSC,CBIC.

¶13

46 + W.P.(C) 16375/2024, CM APPL.7271/2025 (7 Days Delay in Rej.) MS PIRG ASSET CXV LLP

¶14

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Adhitya Srinivasan, Mr. Rishabh Kanojiya, Mr. Ankur Das and Mr. Srajan Tyagi, Advs.

¶15

versus

¶16

SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RANGE 60 & ORS.

¶17

.....Respondent

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 11:04:17

¶20

Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi SSC,CBIC.

¶21

47 + W.P.(C) 16407/2024, CM APPL.7272/2025 (7 Days Delay in Rej.)

¶22

MS PROSPERITY ASSET XII LLP .....Petitioner

¶23

Through: Mr. Adhitya Srinivasan, Mr. Rishabh Kanojiya, Mr. Ankur Das and Mr. Srajan Tyagi, Advs.

¶24

versus

¶25

SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX RANGE 60 & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shubham Tyagi SSC,CBIC.

¶26

CORAM:

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶28

O R D E R % 06.02.2025

¶29

The writ petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

¶30

“A. To issue appropriate writ/directions/order in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents to give effect to the Order in Appeal dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals – II), CGST in Appeal No. 80 / 2023-24;

¶31

B. To issue appropriate writ/directions/order to the Respondents to restore the GST registration of the Petitioner.

¶32

C. To grant such further and other reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.”

¶33

It was constrained to approach this Court since the respondents

¶34

had failed to restore the Goods and Services Tax [“ GST ”] registration of the writ petitioner despite the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 14 February 2024.

¶35

Pursuant to notice being issued on the writ petition, the

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 11:04:17

¶38

respondents have filed a counter affidavit. The solitary ground which appears to have weighed upon them in not giving effect to the order in appeal is a purported decision taken by the competent authority to prefer an appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 14 February 2024.

¶39

Before us, it is fairly conceded that no provision of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can possibly be read as justifying the stand as taken. In our considered opinion, the mere decision taken by an authority to pursue the remedy of appeal does not result in the order-in-original or in appeal of which compliance is sought being placed in abeyance.

¶40

We bear in consideration the following succinct observations which came to be rendered by the Court in Alex Tour & Travel (P) Ltd. vs. Commr. (CGST) [2023 SCC OnLine Del 2709] in this regard:-

¶41

“17. Undisputedly, the Revenue is entitled to file an appeal under section 112 of the Central Goods and Services tax Act, 2017, within a period of three months from the date of the order. We are informed that the said period has been extended as the Appellate Tribunal has not been constituted as yet. However, the respondent cannot refuse to comply with the appellate orders on this ground.

¶42

We are unable to accept that the Revenue can ignore an order passed by the appellate authority on the ground that it proposes to appeal the said order.

¶43

Suffice it to note that there is no order passed by any competent court, staying the implementation of the orders-in-appeal passed by the appellate authority. The Revenue has also taken no steps for securing orders to that effect.

¶44

We are also unable to appreciate the insistence on the part of the Revenue for the appellant to file fresh applications for the refund.

¶45

Mr. Singla fairly states that fresh applications for refund or response to show-cause notices are not necessary, considering that

¶46

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 11:04:17

¶47

the proceedings emanated from the petitioner filing applications for refund, which culminated in orders-in-appeals passed by the appellate authority.

¶48

xxxxxxxxxxx

¶49

The present petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to forthwith disburse the petitioner's claim for refund along with interest as payable in accordance with law.

¶50

It is, however, clarified that this order would not preclude the respondent from availing statutory remedy against the orders-inappeal in accordance with law.”

¶51

We, accordingly, and for all the aforesaid reasons allow the instant writ petition and direct the respondents to restore the GST registration of the writ petitioner in terms as directed by the order in the appeal dated 14 February 2024 forthwith.

¶52

The writ petitions shall stand disposed of on the aforesaid terms.

¶53

YASHWANT VARMA, J.

¶54

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. FEBRUARY 06, 2025/neha

¶55

This is a digitally signed order.

¶56

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/02/2025 at 11:04:17

Ms Prosperity Asset Xii LLP v. Superintendent Central Goods and Services Tax Range 60 & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Prosperity Asset Xii LLP v. Superintendent Central Goods and Services Tax Range 60 & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Kumar Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 28, Delhi & Anr.

Raj Polybags Private Limited Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 21(1) & Ors.

Ramayana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Cir 19(1), Delhi & Anr.

Pratt and Whitney Canada Sea Pte Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Indian Steel Corporation Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I

The Motor & General Finance Ltd. Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Manjit Walia through Spa Sachin Walia Vs Delhi Development Authority

Sonia Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ramayana Ispat Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Cir 19(1), Delhi & Anr.

Ravi Dhingra (Huf) Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(1), Delhi & Ors.

Yogen Khosla Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 4(2), Delhi & Anr.

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi II Vs Mcdonald'S India P.Ltd.

Jyoti Dhanda Vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Anr.

Sunil Ghorawat Vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10 -1, Delhi & Anr.