HC Dismisses Writ for Delay in Challenging Order Before Filing Refund Claim

GST • News • Case Chronicles

Case Details: Moms Cradle Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India (2025) 35 Centax 198 (Del.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain, JJ.
  • S/Shri Ritaj Kacker, Deepansh Dhanija & Ms Divya Rastogi, Adv., for the Petitioner.
  • Shri Ruchesh Sinha, SSC & Ms Upasana Vashishtha, Adv., for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a company engaged in export of goods on payment of IGST, had filed a refund claim which was initially rejected by the jurisdictional authority under CGST. Pursuant to directions of the Delhi High Court in an earlier writ, the department reconsidered the matter and again rejected the claim, against which the petitioner filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal. The petitioner contended that the remaining refund was not released and sought permission to file an appeal against a subsequent demand order alleging fraudulent availment of ITC, stating that the order had not come to its knowledge within the limitation period. It was further submitted that the refund sanctioned by the Appellate Authority may be adjusted as pre-deposit for filing the proposed appeal. The Department of Revenue argued that the petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings and that the refund was being withheld in view of the subsisting demand order. The matter was accordingly placed before the Delhi High Court.

High Court Held

The Delhi High Court held that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner had participated in the proceedings culminating in the demand order. It was observed that the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period and that such delay could not be condoned in exercise of writ jurisdiction.As regards the refund, it was directed that the amount allowed by the Appellate Authority be adjusted against the demand raised under the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

List of Cases Cited

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
Parallel CGST and Customs Action Not Double Jeopardy | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 15, 2025

Ex Parte GST Demand After Rectification Violates Natural Justice – Fresh Adjudication Ordered | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 12, 2025

Transporter Not Liable When Goods Released to Consignor | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 11, 2025

Flow Meter Maintenance Not Part of Composite Supply of Recycled Water | AAR

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 11, 2025

HC Sets Aside Garnishee Order When Appeal Pre-Deposit Made

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 10, 2025

GST Exemption Allowed for Residential Property Used as Hostel | SC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 9, 2025

GST on Dry Lease of Aircraft Classified Under HSN 9973 at 5%

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 9, 2025

GST Registration to Be Auto-Suspended for Missing Bank Details Under Rule 10A | GSTN Advisory

GST • News • Statutory Scope

December 8, 2025

GSTN Issues Additional FAQs for Annual Return Reporting for FY 2024-25

GST • News • Statutory Scope

December 6, 2025

GST Registration Cancellation Upheld for Fake Rent Documents and No Business | HC

GST • News • Case Chronicles

December 5, 2025