Disposed¶17

Thomson Reuters India Private Limited v. the Commissioner , Department of Trade and Taxes and Ors.

Delhi HC20 Aug 2025W.P.(C)/982/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 982/2025, Delhi High Court, decided 20.08.2025; Thomson Reuters India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner, Department of Trade and Taxes; GST refund claims; Section 54(5) CGST Act 2017; sixty-day threshold mandatory - left open; deficiency communication; mandamus for time-bound refund with interest; petition disposed of with directions to process refund applications within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions: petitioner to furnish another set of documents to the respondents within one week; respondents to process the refund application(s) within four weeks thereafter in accordance with law; liberty reserved to the petitioner to pursue available remedies against any order passed. ¶17

Thomson Reuters India Private Limited Vs the Commissioner… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether the threshold of sixty days prescribed under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (within which the respondents are required to act on a refund application, coupled with the asserted fifteen-day obligation to convey deficiencies) is mandatory - a contention urged by the petitioner's counsel but expressly left undecided by the Court. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

The Court expressly did not decide the contention that the sixty-day threshold under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatory and that the respondents are required to act within that period; the point was left open.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner undertook to furnish another set of documents to the respondents within one week, the respondents shall process the petitioner's refund application(s) within a period of four weeks thereafter and proceed in accordance with law.

¶15

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondents on the refund application(s), it shall be at liberty to seek such remedy as is available in law.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar, JJ.) disposed of Thomson Reuters India Private Limited's writ petition seeking a mandamus for refund, with interest, of eight GST refund claims (April 2020 to June 2023). The respondents had communicated deficiencies in the refund application(s), including a communication on the date of hearing; counsel for the petitioner undertook to furnish another set of documents within one week. The Court directed the respondents to process the application(s) within four weeks thereafter and to proceed in accordance with law, reserving the petitioner's liberty to seek available remedies against any order passed. The Court expressly declined to decide the contention that the sixty-day period under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatory.

¶1

$~124

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 982/2025

¶3

THOMSON REUTERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr Kamal Sawhney, Mr Deepak Thackur and Ms Aakansha Wadhwani, Advocates.

¶4

versus

¶5

THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND TAXES AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr Sumit K Batra, Advocate.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R % 20.08.2025

¶8

The present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶9

“i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to direct the Respondents to grant refund along with interest of the eight refund claims [details as mentioned in Annexure P/1] in a time bound manner for the period (1) April 2020 to March 2021 [Annexure P/3]; (2) June 2021 to August 2021 [Annexure P/4]; (3)September 2021 to December 2021 [Annexure P/5]; (4) January 2022 to June 2022 [Annexure P/6]; (5) July 2022 to September 2022 [Annexure P/7]; (6) October 2022 to December 2022 [Annexure P/8]; (7) January 2023 to March 2023 [Annexure P/9] and (8) April 2023 to June 2023 [Annexure P/10];”

¶10

Though, it is the submission of Mr Sawhney that the respondents are under obligation to convey any deficiency in the application for refund within the period of fifteen days and thereafter pass appropriate order within a period of sixty days from the date of application, which has not been done.

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

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 26/08/2025 at 12:04:53

¶13

According to him, the amount of which refund has been sought should be paid forthwith along with interest.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondents would submit as the application which has been filed by the petitioner has certain deficiencies, for which the communication has been sent including the communication sent today at 02.15PM, the petitioner must clear those objections to enable the respondents process its application(s).

¶15

Mr Sawhney, would submit that though all the documents which have been sought for, are furnished, another set of documents shall be furnished to the respondents within a period of one week from today. 5. If that be so, the respondents shall process the application(s) of the petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter and proceed in accordance with law. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondents, liberty shall be with the petitioner to seek such remedy, as available in law.

¶16

It is made clear that we have not decided the issue raised by Mr Sawhney during the hearing that the threshold of sixty days as prescribed under Section 54(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is mandatory and the respondents are required to act within the said period.

¶17

The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶18

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶19

VINOD KUMAR, J

¶20

AUGUST 20, 2025 /M

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 26/08/2025 at 12:04:53

Thomson Reuters India Private Limited v. the Commissioner , Department of Trade and Taxes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomson Reuters India Private Limited v. the Commissioner , Department of Trade and Taxes and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charu Singh Rathore Vs Victoria Girls Senior Secondary School & Ors.

Pravin Singh Chauhan Security Agency Vs Delhi Development Authority DDA through Its Vice Chairman

Residents Welfare Association Motia Khan and Anr. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Pravin Gupta & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Santra Devi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Zahir Abbas Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Shri Mahender Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

B.L.Patney Vs D.D.A. & Ors.

Information Tv Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ranbir Singh

M/S Mala Petrochemicals and Polymers Vs the Income Tax Officer, & Ors.

Rohit Kumar Jain Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1), Delhi

Hlk Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar

Ajay Gaur Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 44 1 Delhi

Subhash Chand Singhal Vs Pcit, DELHI-12 & Ors.