Dismissed

M/S Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, Cgst Delhi West & Ors.

Delhi HC13 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/9189/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST refund of Rs 3,44,469 rejected afresh by the Assistant Commissioner after an appellate order set aside the earlier rejection. The High Court held the fresh order was not non est or without jurisdiction, declined writ interference, dismissed the petition and left the petitioner to appeal under Section 107, permitting exclusion of time spent in the writ proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/S Karamsar Poultry Appliances Vs Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~126

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 13.07.2026

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9189/2026 and CM APPL. 43124/2026 M/S KARAMSAR POULTRY APPLIANCES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Antik Majumder, Adv. versus

¶4

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JANAKPURI DIVISION, CGST DELHI WEST & ORS. .....Respondents

¶5

Through: Mr. Akash Panwar, JSC along with Mr. Abhimanyu Kapoor, Adv. for R-1 and 2. Mr. Kshitij Chhabra, SPC along with Mr. Rahul Morya, GP for R-3.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶8

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶9

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

¶10

The present Petition has been filed seeking issuance of an appropriate writ setting aside the Rejection Order dated 20.02.2026 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order’], passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Delhi (West), vide which the Petitioner was denied the consequential refund of an amount of Rs. 3,44,469/- arising pursuant to the Order-in-Appeal (OIA) dated 27.09.2025 passed by the Joint Commissioner, CGST Appeals-II, Delhi.

¶11

Pithily put, the Petitioner filed an application seeking refund of unutilized Input Tax credit for the tax period from July 2019 to September 2019, claiming a refund of Rs. 6,49,667/-. Pursuant thereto, the Assistant Commissioner, Janakpur Division, issued a Show Cause Notice proposing rejection of the refund claim to the extent of Rs. 3,44,469/-, to which the Petitioner submitted a detailed Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶12

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 1 of 8

¶13

reply.

¶14

Upon consideration thereof, the Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri, vide Order-in-Original (OIO) dated 08.10.2021, partially sanctioned the refund to the extent of Rs. 3,05,198/- and rejected the balance amount of Rs. 3,44,469/-. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which, vide OIA dated 27.09.2025, set aside the OIO. Thereafter, the Petitioner’s refund application in respect of the aforesaid amount was once again rejected by way of the Impugned Order. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel representing the Petitioner claims that the OIA dated 27.09.2025 finalized the issue pertaining to refund and as such the Petitioner is required to be refunded an amount of Rs.3,44,469/along with the statutory interest thereon. He submits that the Petitioner cannot be relegated to the statutory remedy of Appeal, particularly when the OIA dated 27.09.2025 has attained finality.

¶16

Per contra, learned counsel representing the Respondent, while referring to the observations made under Paragraph No.9.2 onwards of the Impugned Order, submits that the Assistant Commissioner while adjudicating the Petitioners request for refund, has provided detailed reasons for refusing the refund and therefore, the appropriate alternative remedy available to the Petitioner is to file an Appeal against the Impugned Order.

¶17

This Court has considered the submissions made by the Parties. Undisputedly the Appeal filed by the Petitioner came to be allowed by way of the OIA dated 27.09.2025, wherein the Joint Commissioner, in Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶18

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 2 of 8

¶19

the concluding paragraph recorded as under:

¶20

“6. The appeal filed by M/sKARAMSAR POULTRY APPLIANCES. GSTIN: 07AAAFK2704M1ZG, BASEMENT, GF, 1ST FLOOR, HOUSE NO 3, BLOCK I SECTOR 3 BAWANA DSIDC. Bawana. New Delhi, North Delhi. Delhi. 110039against Order-In-Original No. ZD070125032348Ldated 08.10.2021is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 08.10.2021is set aside to the extent of the refund amount wrongly rejected on ground discussed supra. The instant appeal is disposed of in terms of Section 107(11) of CGST Act, 2017.”

¶21

Thereafter, the Petitioner’s application seeking refund was considered by the Assistant Commissioner, who passed the Impugned Order undertaking a detailed examination of the matter and recording reasons in support of the decision in the following

¶22

manner:

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶25

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 3 of 8

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶28

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 4 of 8

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶31

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 5 of 8

¶32

Upon perusal of the Impugned Order, it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner has independently examined the Petitioner's claim for refund and recorded detailed reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at therein.

¶33

Similarly, a reading of the OIA dated 27.09.2025 reveals that the Appellate Authority merely set aside the rejection of the Petitioner’s refund claim on the grounds which formed the basis of the OIO dated 08.10.2021. Notably, the OIA neither directed unconditional release of the refund amount nor foreclosed Signature Not Verified Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶34

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 6 of 8

¶35

examination of the Petitioner’s entitlement on any other legally permissible ground.

¶36

Consequently, the Assistant Commissioner cannot be said to have been precluded from examining the refund claim afresh on grounds distinct from those which stood negated by the Appellate Authority. Whether such exercise has been validly undertaken or otherwise would necessarily require an examination of the merits of the reasons recorded in the Impugned Order.

¶37

In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court is prima facie unable to accept that the Impugned Order is non est or wholly without jurisdiction so as to warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Admittedly, an Appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 lies against the Impugned Order, wherein the legality and correctness of the reasons recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, as also the scope and effect of the OIA dated 27.09.2025, can be comprehensively examined.

¶38

In such circumstances and having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Petitioner, if so advised, may avail the statutory remedy of Appeal, wherein the Appellate Authority can examine the issues raised before this Court in a comprehensive manner.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition, along with pending application, is dismissed.

¶40

Needless to observe that the Petitioner shall be entitled to file an Signature Not Verifiedapplication for exclusion of the time spent prosecuting the present Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶41

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 7 of 8

¶42

Petition for the purpose of computing the period of limitation.

¶43

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

¶44

SHAIL JAIN, J.

¶45

JULY 13, 2026 s.godara/hr

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Signed By:JAI NARAYAN Signing Da te:1 4.07.2026 16:18:03

¶48

W.P.(C) 9189/2026 Page 8 of 8

M/S Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, Cgst Delhi West & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S Karamsar Poultry Appliances v. Assistant Commissioner, Janakpuri Division, Cgst Delhi West & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maninder Singh Vs Bank of India

Dinesh Solanki & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Suresh Singhal Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Prabhjit Singh Sarna Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

M/S Shah Caters Vs Archeological Survey of India

Cloud 9 Prjoects Private Limited Vs Anubhav Gupta & Ors.

Pradeep Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Raja Rajeshwari Institute of Medical Sciences Girls Vs Union of India and Ors.

Ssapp Overseas Private Limited Vs Additional Commissioner and Ors.

Gm Enterprises Vs Parvesh Gupta

Chandan Pharmacy Ltd. Vs Uma Shankar Sahney

Ms Ola Cell Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Super Traders Vs Principal Commissioner, Dgst, Delhi & Anr.

Maya Papers Vs Union of India & Anr.